Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

For the criteria to become a featured article, see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

For the similar process page for good articles, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.

This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page. Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ. Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time. The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Gog the Mild, David Fuchs and FrB.TG—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: actionable objections have not been resolved; consensus for promotion has not been reached; insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or a nomination is unprepared. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. Do not use graphics or complex templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed. An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations are allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback. Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere. A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}. Table of Contents – This page:

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating How to nominate an article Nomination procedure Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead. Commenting, etc Commenting, supporting and opposing Supporting and opposing To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process. To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria. To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice. For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems. Specifically, a semi-colon creates an HTML description list with a description term list item. As a result, assistive technology is unable to identify the text in question as a heading and thus provide navigation to it, and screen readers will make extra list start/item/end announcements. If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

Nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2021 [1].

---

Low (David Bowie album)

Nominator(s): – zmbro _(talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... David Bowie's 1977 album Low, an album widely considered his greatest and with good reason. Side one is full of incomplete songs while side two is full of ambient pieces. Sometimes compared to Radiohead's Kid A, it's easy to understand why critical reception was so divided initially (though not commercially, to the label's surprise). Nevertheless, the influence this album left was almost immediate. Without this album, we wouldn't have Joy Division or the majority of post-punk. In my opinion, this album really is an experience. I've worked all year on this article and fully believe it's ready to become featured, especially after a thorough PR, copy-edit, and GAN. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. Happy editing. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Procedural note -- I don't know how I missed this earlier but, Zmbro, per the FAC instructions you're only permitted one solo nom at a time, unless your current nom is very close to promotion (i.e. source and image reviews plus several reviews supportive of promotion) and you've checked with a coord about a second. Usually we simply remove out-of-process noms but as this one is a few days in and has reviews, we'll let it go, but remember next time pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose My apologies I was not aware. I'll keep that in mind from here on out. Thanks. – zmbro _(talk) 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Taking a look now....

After years of drug addiction and personal instability while living in Los Angeles... - not fond of "personal instability"...maybe just "burnout"? or leave out altogether (as implied by drug addiction)?

Removed that part.

was at the end of my tether physically and emotionally and had serious doubts about my sanity. - this is used twice - once at end of Background and inspiration section and then (split) in 2nd last para of Recording and production' section.

Wow you're right, that's embarrassing. Removed the second one.

Low is noted for its unique drum sound - not a fan of "unique" here as strictly speaking just about everything is unique..or it isn't "unusual" or maybe leave out an adjective altogether...

'Unusual' works.

Bowie was flattered by the symphony and gave unanimous praise to it, - a single person can't give "unanimous" praise. Need another adjective.

Just removed it since "gave unanimous praise" is already used earlier.

Retrospectively, Low has received critical acclaim - this is redundant if you stick a "later" in the next sentence

Removed that and partially reworded per FA Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

Above are just quibbles really - a nice read and comprehensive. Within striking distance of FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Casliber Thanks for the kind words! Queries taken care of. – zmbro _(talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

(chuckle) I recall an interview with Bowie years ago where he reminisced about him and Iggy leaving LA to get away from drugs and then chuckling about Berlin (the implication was something like out of the frying pan into the fire..)...but you got me to listen to the album which I'd never done before and it was good. kudos/all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, something like "I moved from the coke capital of the world to the smack capital of the world", wasn't it...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Heh, yeah that was it XD Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I had participated in the peer review for this article, and all of my concerns were addressed there. Best of luck with this FAC and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Are there any better-quality replacements for File:David_bowie_05061978_01_150.jpg and File:Stephen_Morris_performing_with_New_Order,_2012.jpg?

• For the first no. That's literally the only photo of Bowie from '77–'80 that WP has. – zmbro _(talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• For the second, the only photos of him available are here, and I don't think many of those are better than the current one. Please let me know if you think otherwise and I'll change it. – zmbro _(talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think File:New_Order,_Chile_2019_(32870460658).jpg at least gives a clearer view of his face? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• You're right. Changed it. Nikkimaria – zmbro _(talk) 01:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:David_Bowie_Breaking_Glass.ogg: given the length of the original, this exceeds the guidelines set out in WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria My bad. I uploaded a shortened audio clip of only ten seconds that solely highlights the drum sound. – zmbro _(talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review...

• Copyedited down to Side Two -- although it's really down to being time for bed where I am, it seems appropriate given the album's celebrated dual structure to stop the first part of the copyedit at this point.
• My initial impressions are that we could cut some detail, and paraphrase or lose a few quotes with which the article is laden. Both these issues are understandable given the amount of literature on the album and its importance in the Bowie canon but we need to summarise a bit more I think. I'll sleep on it and come back with further edits to the rest of the article and suggestions for cuts or paraphrases overall.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Evening Ian, has that been addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow, that ping seemed to show up only yesterday yet it's dated the 19th -- admittedly I have been taking a bit of break since the weekend, if you can give me a bit longer to go through the latest version... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Support by Graham Beards

I made some edits to the Lead [2], which perhaps need explaining since one was reverted.

• This "After years of drug addiction living in Los Angeles," needs a conjunction because drug addiction did not live in LA; Bowie did. I changed it to "After years of drug addiction when living in Los Angeles, Bowie moved to France in 1976". "While" might be a better choice.
• This needs a proposition "Sessions began at Hérouville's Château d'Hérouville in September 1976 and ended in October at Hansa Studios in West Berlin, where Bowie and Pop had moved." You can use "to where (they) had moved" or the more ugly "moved to". Either way, it needs a preposition otherwise it just means they were moving (around and around) there. I don't know why the nominator thinks "to where" makes no sense. (Take a look at Preposition stranding).

• This "Grounded in art rock and experimental rock, Low features Bowie's first explorations in electronic and ambient styles, influenced by German bands such as Tangerine Dream, Neu!, Harmonia and Kraftwerk." I thought doesn't flow well, so I combined the appositive to "Grounded in art rock and experimental rock and influenced by German bands such as Tangerine Dream, Neu!, Harmonia and Kraftwerk, Low features Bowie's first explorations in electronic and ambient styles." As a suggestion.
• Here "its drum sound was widely imitated" I changed the tense to the past continuous because it is still imitated.
• There was redundancy here, "It has been cited as a forerunner in the development of the post-rock genre of the 1990s", so I changed it to an appositive phrase, " A forerunner in the development of the post-rock genre of the 1990s, Low has been reissued several times..."

I think there is still work needed on the prose.—Graham Beards (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Such as...? – zmbro _(talk) 14:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

See the improvements that have been made to the article since I wrote the above.Graham Beards (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Evening Graham, how is it looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Evening Gog, I think the article is much improved and I am pleased Support on Criterion 1a. -Graham Beards (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Popcornfud

I've stayed out of FA/GA stuff for a few years now, but as I seem to have caused some upset by making copyedits to this article recently, and zmbro suggested I comment on the FAC instead, here are my two cents.

I think this is a really thorough and well researched article that has the basis for a really great article. I coincidentally just checked out the article as I was listening to Low for the first time recently (yes I know, I hang my head in shame for this lateness), and it definitely enriched my appreciation of the album. As a gearhead, the stuff about the pitch shifter on the drums I found especially interesting.

I agree with comments above that the prose could still use some sharpening, which I've attempted to help with. I have apprehensions about the information hierarchy with the "Overview" heading, which in my view is redundant - an artificial fix to address anxiety over "Drum sound" sharing equal heading weight with the "Tracks" sections. As the drum sound information seems to more describe the process by which the drum sound was achieved rather than describe the music, I suspect it could be integrated into the Production section instead. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree. The Drum sound section belongs under production. Graham Beards (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I initially had it under there. The issue I have is that there's enough info on it to warrant its own sub-section, but imo you can't put it at the end of recording because then it interrupts flow. I would like to separate recording into sub-sections ala Station to Station but I can't find the right grouping. If drum sound can manage to go under recording in a good way then the overview sub-section can go. – zmbro _(talk) 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud Re-pinging. What you thinking here? – zmbro _(talk) 02:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't look like much has changed in the article regarding the placement of the "drum sound" stuff and the "overview" hierarchy, so I don't have much new to say. I don't really get involved in FA/GA stuff any more - if other editors feel there is no issue here then don't let me become an obstacle to FA or whatever. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Popcornfud How's that look? :-) – zmbro _(talk) 15:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Much better! Popcornfud (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

All ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1054642237.

• What makes National RockStar (ref #74) reliable (or I suppose, significant for opinion)?
  • I found it on Rock's Backpages and wanted to get as many reviews as possible. I personally think "his most bizarre and adventurous LP" is pretty good to have. – zmbro _(talk) 18:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, we should work out the significance/reliability of the source independently of how desperately you want to be able to use it. I've found a bio of the journalist here and despite his somewhat gutter press affiliations in later life, including work for a fake news outlet, I'm happy enough that he was a professional journalist and his opinion is significant in the given context. — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
• I am satisfied of the reliability of all other sources—books, magazines, newspapers, encyclopediae and websites. It's a very impressive reference list.

• Thank you! I tried my best :-) – zmbro _(talk) 18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• Rolling Stone should be linked in ref #56, I think (appears you're doing linking on first occurrence only).
• Ultimate Classic Rock should be linked in ref #68, not #69.
• In ref #80, I think Red Bull Music Academy should be linked and not in italics (publisher, not website).
• Refs #144, #162 and #237 shouldn't link Billboard.
• Ref #160 is missing a closing quote mark.
• In ref #197, The Guardian should be linked.
• "a.k.a. J. Peter Robinson and Paul Buckmaster who had worked with Bowie on The Man Who Fell to Earth soundtrack" – Can we have a comma before "who"?

• Above seven fixed

• The Rolling Stone source cited doesn't seem to verify It was released in CD, vinyl and digital formats, as part of this compilation and then separately the following year.

• Replaced with Uncut and Pitchfork, which verify the release formats, and trimmed the latter half of the sentence as I couldn't verify that. – zmbro _(talk) 19:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• A quote box says I was in serious public decline but "public" isn't present in the Telegraph's quotation.

• Fixed

• Ref #228 doesn't work for me ("Whitelabel Error Page").
• Some book sources taken on good faith, but checked a couple of the ones I could access, as well as some of the media sources and charts. No issues other than those above.

— Bilorv (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy with the other responses, just waiting on a solution to the musicline.de deadlink ("Whitelabel Error Page"), unless it's just on my end that the page isn't loading. — Bilorv (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv It's erroring for me too. The chart template is being used for that one so I'm not exactly sure how to fix that. Any ideas? – zmbro _(talk) 15:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, another reason I hate the chart template. You can manually write a reference using a parameter in the template—see Template:Album chart#Manual referencing. However, I'm not quite sure what the intended reference page is. Wayback Machine doesn't show anything on the target page, while a search within the website brings up these two pages for Low, but I can't see that either verify any chart positions: [3][4]. — Bilorv (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv Hmm. If we can't verify the positions should we just remove it? – zmbro _(talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv Done. – zmbro _(talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Great, that's a support on sourcing from me then. — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 13:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2021 [5].

---

Vuelve (album)

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Co-nomination with آرمین هویدایی and Tomica. This is my first non Luis Miguel album article in a long time. I worked extensively along with the editors mentioned and am tackle ready to tackle this for FA. Whatever issues the article presents, I am ready to address and any questions that might need to be answered. Erick (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Noting that Erick is User:Magiciandude, for the avoidance of doubt about top contributors stats check.

User:Max24 is shown as a top editor of this article and is still actively editing. And yet, two other editors are listed as co-noms. Was Max24 consulted prior to this nomination (see FAC instructions) and is Max24 in agreement that the article is FAC ready? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Don't use fixed px size
• Might the article benefit from a non-free sample?
• File:DracoRosa3.jpg: source links don't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, how does the media files look now? I uploaded two samples, each one to represent the uptempo and slow tempo tracks of the album, respectively. I used the tracks that were not released as singles so I don't have to justify its inclusion on this article in addition to their usage on the article about the song. If two samples are not suitable and one of them has to go, which one would you recommend keeping? Erick (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on the FURs, particularly the purpose of use item? That would help justify having two. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: How do the FURs look now on the "purpose of use" section? Erick (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

For transparency, I had participated in the last peer review for this article. My comments are below:

• I have a question about the following sentence: Vuelve is a Latin album composed of 14 songs, consisting mainly of "red-hot" Latin dance numbers and "melodramatic" pop ballads. This specifically defines the genre as Latin dance, but the infobox only includes Latin. Shouldn't it be the more specific Latin dance since this is brought up in the above sentence and in the lead, and would be a more useful descriptor than the more generic Latin identifier?
• I have a question about the translations. Apologies if this is rather obvious. I have not worked with materials from other languages so I am not familiar with this. A majority of the Spanish titles are translated, but there are a few instances, such as A Medio Vivir and "Marcia Baila", that do not have this. Shouldn't it be consistent for each Spanish title?
• In the "Critical reception" section, there are three instances in which the star rating is included in the prose. This is an example, The Los Angeles Times' Lechner gave the album three-and-a-half out of four stars. I do not find this rating to be particularly useful in the prose. It is already in the professional ratings box, and I think the prose is best left to actually discussing what is in the review. I'd remove the star ratings from the prose for all three instances.
• What is the structure for the "Critical reception" section? Right now, it reads more like two paragraphs with reviews somewhat randomly listed without any real rhyme or reason. See WP:RECEPTION if you would like a good resource on how to write a reception section.

Great work with the article. I do not that many notes for the article, and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope that this review encourages other editors to look at this FAC as it has fallen rather down the list (at least at the time of me typing this out). I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments as always Aoba47. I've addressed everything but the last part and I'll admit I was taken back a bit since this I never had this problem on my past FACs. One idea I have is the first paragraph would be for what critics liked about the album and the second paragraph what critics didn't like about it. This would be consistent with the opening lead since the overusage of ballads was criticized and would be useful on the second paragraph. Erick (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. To be clear, I did not mean for the final comment to come across as rude or offensive. I greatly admire your work on Wikipedia, and you have done a great job with this article. With the last comment, I was more so asking about your approach for this section, and I should have worded that more clearly. I was just somewhat uncertain of this section was structured. For instance, there are three critics who dislike "No Importa la Distancia" (i.e. Promis, Burr, and Tarradell), and it may be beneficial to organize these critiques together. I think your idea of separating the positive reviews into one paragraph and the negative into another makes sense to me. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Oh no no no, I greatly appreciate your feedback and I'm actually glad you brought that section up. This will help for future FACs. I should've said "surprised", instead of "taken back" and I do apologize if I came across as offended. Erick (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I just wanted to make sure. Let me know when you have revised that section. Aoba47 (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Magiciandude: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to check in on the progress for this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey there @Aoba47:, I was working on the critical reception on a sandbox of mine and just finished revamping it. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Four weeks in and there is little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this nomination attracts considerably more interest over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Will take a look soon. Pamzeis (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I've made a few tweaks myself; feel free to revert anything you disagree with. I only have two comments:

• "asked him to write a composition for" — WP:EGG?
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works should be italicised in citations

So, yeah, I support. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your support and making the tweaks. I changed "a composition" to "an anthem". آرمین هویدایی (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose and suggest withdrawal: my review is on talk. I intended to review the Spanish-language sources, per the request at FAC talk, because two prior Supports suggest that this article was indeed FAC-worthy and ready for a source review. But, the prose is lacking (unlikely to be fixed by a copyedit), the lead is poorly organized and scattered, and there are sourcing problems in the few Spanish-language sources I checked (suggesting that should this article come back to FAC in the future with better writing and text that conforms to high-quality sourcing standards, then a thorough check of sourcing should be re-done ... I checked only a few). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Coord note -- For such issues to be raised in a nom that's been open six weeks is a concern, I suggest following the suggestions above and then perhaps trying PR (or seeing if Sandy is able to check over after improvements) before bringing back here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2021 [6].

---

German destroyer Z51

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a planned class of Destroyers for Nazi Germany. Notably, the first to use diesel engines. After a long period of development, including four different models, only one was built, and launched unfinished to make room for submarine construction near the end of the war. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

None used. I believe that if there are no free images, it would be possible to use a non-free image to illustrate the subject. (t · c) buidhe 16:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: I have reached out to the owner of www.german-navy.de to ask for permission to use the image of the ship from their page. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's good but I believe all permissions have to go through c:COM:VRT (rebranded OTRS team). (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Given it is a unique ship, I suggest that a strong NFUR would suffice. See File:Torpedo boat tc 1.jpg for an example. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Indy beetle

Initial comments:

• At first, these changes were made with the goal of being able to match or exceed French and Polish destroyers, but later it was necessary that these destroyers be able to match British destroyers . Match in what respect? Displacement? Speed?

  From memory, the source isn't super clear but I believe the general gist is that a German destroyer should have a 50-50 shot at defeating a British destroyer in a one-on-one, and should always win against French and Polish destroyers. I'll check again. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  So basically match them in combat? -Indy beetle (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Indy beetle: yes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

  Well, maybe add that then and that will be more clear, if the sources say so explicitly. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Indy beetle: I have explained the concept further by adding in Koop and Smcholke; while Whitley provides they should be able to match, Koop and Smcholke directly comment on the jump in displacement. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• The motors encountered initial problems with teething Is there a Wikilink which could explain the teething concept?

  Need to review the source, as I look at it its possible I misunderstood the "teething problem" metaphor as a literal problem with the motors teething. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  • • So, problems with the gears working? -Indy beetle (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

      @Indy beetle: While searching for a link I came across the idiom of "teething problems", similar to "growing pains", to describe initial issues in new developments, which had me concerned I had misunderstood the source and taken it as a literal issue with the teeth of the motor when the authors were using the idiom and the actual motor teeth may not have been the source of the problem. Looking at the source it describes "initial teething problems", so I believe it was a literal issue of the teeth lining up with each other, as it makes little sense to put initial and teething right next to each other, especially when talking about something that actually has teeth. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• The number of 5.5 cm guns was increased to three, grouped about the after funnel. The aft funnel?
•  Done
• However, Germany surrendered on 8 May 1945, before U-234 could reach its target, and she therefore surrendered herself to USS Sutton, in the western Atlantic, on 14 May 1945. Were the schematics handed over the Allies or were they destroyed before the surrender?

  Source doesn't cover it but I doubt the Germans had the presence of mind (or interest) to destroy the plans. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• How are you ordering Works cited?

  Fixed; I'm treating Motor Ships as if the first letter of the title (n) was the first letter of an authors name, other alphabetical issues resolved.

• Don't use postal abbreviations, per MOS:POSTABBR

  Fixed.

• Motor Ship link gives a different publisher than indicated here. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed OCLC; WorldCat gives the publisher as Temple Press, whereas Google Books gives it as the industrial press. I'm inclined to side with WorldCat, unless there are objections.

• @Nikkimaria: All issues should be fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Seventeen in and little sign of a consensus to promote forming. If this doesn't improve considerably by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Good to see a little further interest being attracted. Per the FAC instructions

  Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and  Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

  I would be grateful if you could remove the tick graphics. They contribute to overloading the system and causing transclusions to drop off the bottom of the list. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soonish. FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• No relevant images? Schematics, similar ships, people mentioned, etc.?

Comments by PM

I'll also take a look shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC) 'Lead

• suggest "Z51 was the only destroyer of the Type 1942 class built for the Kriegsmarine during World War II.
• done
• "the first destroyer designed or built by the Kriegsmarine to use diesel fuel" was it "the first" or "the only"?
• done

Body

• "During the Interbellum, the period between the first and second world wars"→"During the interwar period"
• done
• "The displacements of all German ships at the time were purposefully understated to have their official sizes comply with the treaty. At first, these changes were made with the goal of being able to match or exceed French and Polish destroyers, but later it was necessary that these destroyers be able to match British destroyers, a much more difficult goal" this segues weirdly between "all ships" and "destroyers"
• done
• link destroyer at first mention in the body
• done
• this begs the question of why matching British destroyers was a much more difficult goal

  I'll have to check sources but I don't think Whitley explains in the same section why; will look for it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• suggest "a policy of heavily arming her destroyers"
• done
• link light cruiser
• done
• link seaworthiness
• done
• suggest "and their fire control was inferior."
• done
• suggest "the two countries had combined totals of:"
• done
• suggest "could not directly threaten the British Royal Navy"
• done
• link torpedo boat and then torpedo
• done
• link anti-submarine warfare
• done
• link Screening (tactical)
• done
• link submarines
• done
• I don't understand what "However, there was an increased desire to introduce anti-aircraft measures to the destroyers, although many nations struggled to do so effectively" means

  I've dropped the "however"; a lot of the nations wanted to make destroyers better at fighting off airplanes, but they struggled to do so. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Does "Germany relied on a massive fleet of trawlers that had been requisitioned and refitted as minelayers instead" mean that the Germans used minelaying trawlers as sub chasers, or that they relied on mine laying to counter submarines? It is currently confusing.

  I'll need to double check sources for this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• "from enemy planesaircraft" just a bit informal
• done
• move the link to Kriegsmarine to first mention in the body
• done
• "The motors had initial teething problems"
• done
• "any research" funding?
• done
• "that the Kriegsmarine renewed its interest in diesel propulsion"
• done
• the level of detail in the Diesel engines section is excessive IMHO. All that is needed is the type of engine (V24), configuration, and max output.

  I would agree but for the fact that it was the only diesel ship, I am open to trimming it if that is consensus, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• link Drive shaft
• done
• consistency re: subdesign and sub-design
• done
• how were the guns of the original design configured? two single superfiring guns fore and aft or one double turret fore and aft?
• done
• what were the criticisms of the original design?

  Will consult sources. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• swap the FdZ link to Type commander (Kriegsmarine)#Destroyers and briefly explain what it was
• done
• link Bow (watercraft)
• done
• what model of 12.7 cm gun was originally intended to be fitted?
• is Naval Group North the same as Marineoberkommando der Nordsee? In which case it would roughly translate as Naval Region North Sea. A possible link would be Naval regions and districts of the Kriegsmarine#Naval Region North Sea
• move the link to Anti-aircraft warfare to first mention in the body
• done
• what do tri-axial and bi-axial mean in this context?
• link Director (military) and rangefinder
• done
• link Gun stabilizer
• done
• watch your engvar, I see defense but centimetres
• done
• "flak"→"anti-aircraft"
• done
• first mention of LM/44 2 cm (0.79 in) twin mounted AA guns, but they are being replaced. Needs to be rewritten.
• also, I thought the LM 44 was a mount, not a gun
• what model were the 3 cm (1.2 in) twin mount AA guns supposed to be? I only know of the experimental 3 cm MK 303 Flak
• similar questions about the 5.5 cm (2.2 in) Gerät 58, were any actually made?
• "at this conference, it"→"It"
• done
• link torpedo tube
• done
• suggest "with one set forward and one abaft of the second funnel"
• done
• who were "the other groups"?

Down to Designs, more to come. I have to say that at this stage, the article is definitely not close to FA. I feel like the whole subdesign section needs a fair bit of work, and possibly division into subsections for each subdesign as well as tightened up descriptions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 19:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Iazyges, I'm sorry, but I'll be having to archive this one now. With no traction having been gained three weeks in and the suggestion that it needs significant work, it looks like this one will be best worked up for a second FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 02:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2021 [7].

---

SpaceX Starship

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Plaid speed!!! - Spaceballs, probably

This article is about Starship, a fully reusable rocket which is in development by SpaceX. It describes technical, operational and cultural aspect of Starship, as well as many criticisms to the vehicle and development. This article also briefly mention Starship's development history as well. It has been expanded and reformed from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SpaceX Starship/archive1 with a much more comprehensive Operation section, as well as criticisms to the system, and has undergone a huge peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/SpaceX Starship/archive1. If you know how the article can be improved, please reply and I will resolve it as soon as possible. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Lean oppose by Urve

While there has been substantial movement toward high quality sourcing since the last nomination, I am still quite concerned about text-source integrity. So, unless this can be attended to (and it will take a good amount of effort), I oppose promotion on sourcing. Version reviewed, some comments may touch on prose but that's not something I can competently speak to in general

• Neither fn 5 or fn 6 support the general claim that Starship is composed of 304L stainless steel; 5 makes no mention, 6 only makes the claim for SN8

Moved fn5 to the first sentence, change fn6 to [8] that mentions switching from 301 to 304L. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The resultant gas quickly moves, and the engine nozzle redirects it to produce thrust. The Raptor Vacuum variant is equipped with a nozzle extension to increase its specfic impulse in the vacuum of space. - unsourced

Sourced! CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Super Heavy booster's primary goal - not stated as a primary goal in either fn 9 or fn 10; this speed has a connotation of being a limitation (not a goal?) by Musk in fn 10

Fixed to When launch, Super Heavy booster accelerates ... Mach 9 speed is not a limitation, it is a boon for Super Heavy to land without shielding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I don't know what a "sea-level optimized Raptor" is at this point, but that description is not in fn 11 or 12; 11 says up to 32, 12 says up to 33, so that much is OK

• ^ sea-level optimization is supported in a separate source so that much is fine, but what this means should be explained when the term is first introduced Urve (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Finding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The booster is topped with a stage adapter not in fn 13 or 14; doubt it matters from a prose level, though, since we can just say they are attached and avoid the unnecessary words

Changed to On top of the booster, the Starship spacecraft is attached. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• After separation, the Starship spacecraft will accelerate itself to orbit and perform mission tasks and objectives - not in fn 15

Added [9]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• composite overwrapped pressure vessels - not in fn 16

Removed, no reliable source is found CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• and three for the vacuum of space - paraphrasing of this sentence is too close to the source

Changed to three for vacuum operation CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Positioned above are... - don't see this description in fn 18

Added [10] CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• On top of the tanks is the payload section houses a liquid oxygen header tank and payload - fn 19 speaks to the header tank but the payload is not there

Added [11]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• In the Starship crewed variant, the payload bay will house cabins and other facilities - not supported by fn 20, but the other sentences seem to be supported... interestingly, they also speak to using starship as a space debris cleaner, may be worthy of mention

Added the space debris thingy and [12]. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• "aft" and "forward" are redundant because being at the top/front means aft in (space)ship terminology. unless I am missing something, which I may be. anyway, adequately supported in what I see

Should keep it there for people who don't know what is aft and forward. They are also terms coined by SpaceX. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• The windward side of the spacecraft is covered by a heat shield made from hexagon tiles - fn 10 just says these are being tested

Replaced with [13].

• This brings me to a concern about article in general: Are we trying to describe the intended final version of Starship, or the several prototypes which have already launched and will continue to launch? We are mixing around descriptors -- some for the final one, some for the current one (for example, some ships have three raptors when launched, but the final design will have six, according to one of the sources) -- but there's no accompanying textual disclaimer about to which it applies

I describes the final version of Starship as of SpaceX plan in October 2021. SpaceX is ridiculously fast, so it is hard to know what is their final design. Added a sentence for disclaimer. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• I assume good faith on fn 22 because I don't want to watch it

Confirmed to be accurate. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• minor point: likely to be the first site to launch Starship to orbit - fn 28 says that it's the current plan. there may be a distinction between something being planned and something being likely (I dunno if that's the case or not); either way, suggest changing to 'planned'

It is planned. Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• fn 25 cannot support the "As of October 2021" claim because it is from January

Changed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• minor point: fn 34 says it has landed on drone ships, not that it might in the future - unless I miss something (didn't read it all)

It is planned, not have landed. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• letting the booster's grid fins touch down on them - don't know what this means (what is "them" referring to?)

The catching arms catch the booster by letting the grid fins to touch down on them. Don't know how to phrase it though CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• didn't read "Future variants" section or beyond

I think these demonstrate the extent of my concerns, all only being in the first two subsections. I am separately concerned about criterion 1e being fulfilled with the major changes that regularly occur, often daily or several times a day. I can return later for more comments, but having to read dozens of articles and finding that many don't verify the accompanying text is difficult - it's harder to figure out what a source doesn't say than what it does. If my comments have been helpful, I have an open peer review here. Urve (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Urve: Thank you so much on reviewing the sources! It is really hard to know what is missing in the sources when you have +100 of them. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose from Hurricane Noah

@CactiStaccingCrane: Here's two more unsourced ones I thought I should point out. Just a tip as I saw your comment above about not knowing what the sources lack, it becomes easier to know more about your sources the longer you spend working with them. I have found it's better to work more slowly on something than to try and speed through it; there are fewer mistakes that way. I always let the sources write the article and it never does me wrong. Keep in mind that others will expect you to know everything inside and out since you are the nominator. Noah^Talk 03:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I should get into habit of writing the source down then :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• The engine is cooled by circulating the fuel around the outside of the fuel chamber, which also preheats the mixture.

Source added CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

• Verified test articles will launch in different flight paths, depending on their objectives.

Not unsourced, the list of test articles have flown in different path (hop, 10km flight), and this is not WP:SYNTHESIS. CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

It still has to have a source at the end of the line backing it up. Regardless of what other supported text states, we can't leave other sentences unsupported. Noah^Talk 12:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• The account uploading the video for FN25 is not that of a reputable expert/agency. Noah^Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• There's quite a bit of relevant scholarly sources out there that aren't included. For example, I saw one related to future landing sites on Mars. Noah^Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Given the relatively recent flurry of additions and large changes (unrelated to FAC), I would say this article is unstable and fails 1e. I also see there is an ongoing dispute resolution related to content in this article, which further emphasizes that. Considering there's only 5 books and journals here and there are quite a few more with relevant content, the article does not meet 1c either. I'm not convinced this article is well-researched with the amount of scholarly research out there. I feel I have no choice but to oppose this nomination given my above reasons. Noah^Talk 20:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane:@FAC coordinators: I am recommending this article be withdrawn until such time it is stable and there is a general consensus for what should be included in it. Considering there is currently a dispute resolution open regarding whether or not a section should exist within the article, this is far from stable. Noah^Talk 23:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The dispute resolution happened before this article is nominated for FAC, so I couldn't do very much at it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• It seems clear that there is not a consensus to promote this article, so I am archiving the nomination to allow the areas identified to be worked on off-FAC. The usual two week hiatus will apply, but I look forward to seeing the article here again in an improved state. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 November 2021 [14].

---

Cerro Blanco (volcano)

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a volcanic caldera in remote northwestern Argentina. It is well known for three reasons; firstly, the wind-formed landscape at Campo de Piedra Pomez that has been used as an analogue terrain for Mars and is also a local tourism destination. Secondly, for its major eruption 4,200 years ago that distributed volcanic ash across the region. Third, because satellite images have seen that the caldera is actively deforming to this day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text
• File:Cerro_Blanco_volcano_(AVA_Granule_L1B_20000916145757).jpg: source link doesn't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done and added an archive. Given the notice on this page I think this may work again in the near future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Placeholder for non-expert prose review. Will try to start this soon. Moisejp (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Calderas and lava domes:

• "The Cerro Blanco caldera is about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide": Does this mean the width ranges from 4–6 kilometres? Or possibly different estimates or different interpretations of what is included in its boundaries? This point is not very clear. Also, should the 4 come before the 6?

  It's a width range from disagreeing sources, which is why each dimension has its own source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there are conventions for this in geographical-related articles, but I think if it were me, I would probably write the following differently:

• "13 by 10 kilometres (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" → possibly "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" or "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1-mi × 6.2-mi) caldera"
• "a 2.7 by 1.4 kilometres (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" → "a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" or a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68-mi × 0.87-mi) wide lava dome"
• "1.2 kilometres (0.75 mi) wide and 20 metres (66 ft) deep vent" → "1.2-kilometre (0.75-mi) wide and 20-metre (66-ft) deep vent"

The hyphens are possibly discussable, but I'd argue that in cases like these where there's a noun (caldera, dome, vent) following the unit of measure (kilometre, metre) then the unit of measure should be singular. Unless there are regional differences regarding this point, in which case the regional difference is of course valid. (Just to be clear, the instances I'm talking about here are only the ones where there is a noun following. In "6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide" above there is no noun at the end so the s on kilometres is good and definitely no hyphen is needed.) Moisejp (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, the main reason why there aren't hyphens is because {{convert}} does not automatically add them. I am agnostic on whether to add them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: {{convert}} can indeed automatically add them: {{convert|1.2|km|mi|adj=mid|abbr=off}} → 1.2-kilometre (0.75-mile). Volcanoguy 06:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo. I'm really sorry, but something has come up in real life and I need to break off this review and take a Wikibreak. I appreciate the source and image reviews you've done for me in the past. I hope to continue reviewing some of your articles in the future when my life has gotten less busy again. Best of luck on your article. Best wishes, Moisejp (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Volcanoguy

I will be reviewing this in a bit. Volcanoguy 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I've made several changes to the article while I was reviewing it so I didn't have to list all of my concerns here. Volcanoguy 22:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Nearly three weeks in and no signs of a consensus to promote forming. If this doesn't improve considerably by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the reviewers at El Tatio to see if they want to comment on this one: @Wtfiv, Kusma, Femkemilene, Nikkimaria, Chidgk1, Volcanoguy, and TheDoctorWho: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, there are a lot of duplinks which can be highlighted with the usual tool.[15] FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• No more relevant images that could spice up the latter part of the article? Looked at Flickr? There seem to be some more interesting images in this Commons category?[16]

  Flickr has nothing for Cerro Blanco that is about this volcano and for Campo de Piedra Pomez most images are already on Commons. Regarding the Commons images ... eh, most of them look all pretty much alike. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason why the infobox image is framed ina way that it has a lot of black borders? Can't it be cropped to a square? If it's because it has the right north south directions or something, I don't think it's that necessary, since it's not apparent from either the image or the caption.

  I think that's an artifact of the way it was created. I don't know of any crop tool that can remove partially rotated borders, but I'll ask at commons:COM:GL/P Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I use Microsoft Paint for cropping. Volcanoguy 10:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I can do it for you in Photoshop, Paint diminishes image quality, I think. Should I just update the current file? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Better in a new file since the rotation means that we need to specify that the top is north-northeast and not north. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, seems it was already done on top of the original file. You can always reupload it as a new version, or upload the old version separately again. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems you might want to adjust the caption accordingly, if directions have changed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Done; there wasn't much to change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder if the meaning of the two common names should also be explained in the article body? There is no explanation for the second one.

  Um, I am not sure what the "common names" here are. If you mean the toponyms, I haven't found any source that discusses them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, mistakenly used the term used for animals hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link tectonic?

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think technical terms like aeolian and cryptodome could be explained in-text.

  These two are footnoted now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• "It was among the finalists in the "Seven Wonders of Argentina" contest." When?

  Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and at eastern end" There are many places where you don't use definite article before directions, while you do in other places, any reason for this? Reads a bit odd without.

  Added a "the". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There are other cases, but I don't know of whether it is really incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link yardangs in caption.

  Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the first was in the middle Miocene and the second began 7 million years ago" Why give geological age for one and number in years for another?
• "initiated about 8 million years ago" Again here, I think you could give both geological age and age in numbers for each mention, now it's a hodgepodge of either throughout.

  (Discussing both things above) That's going to be impossible; sources sometimes use numerical ages and sometimes age periods. I am unkeen to convert the one into the other because it assumes/negates specificity when it isn't/is present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Anything on the wildlife of the area?

  As far as I can tell, nobody has discussed the fauna of the volcano's area. The wider region, yes (for example), but I am not sure about using that on an article specific for one location. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The oldest[j] volcanic rocks related to Cerro Blanco are the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem"; its outcrops are" Strange change from plural to singular. Which is it?

  That's something I'll need grammar advice on - the "are" refers to the "volcanic rocks" but the "its" to the "Cortaderas Synthem". Is there a better formulation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

As usual, I'll see if Gog the Mild has something to say on this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Me as a grammar expert! Ha! Nope, you can't say that, good spot FunkMonk. Maybe 'The oldest volcanic rock formation related to Cerro Blanco is the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem"; its outcrops are'? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

That works; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "which were erupted a long time apart" Is the "were" needed?

  No; I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "They contain pumice and fragments of country rock" I'm sure that's not the article you want linked under country rock...

  Aye, thus delinked it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "he 4.2 kiloyear event occurred You could add "climatic" to make t clear what this is.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• You link some countries, not sure what the guidelines are, but I've been told we shouldn't.

  Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "No[p] eruptions have been observed or recorded at Cerro Blanco" Add "historically?

  Did that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "A recent eruption occurred 73,000 years ago" By what standards is this recent? You mention a much later eruption too, but don't call it recent.

  It is recent by the standard of regional volcanic activity, but yes it's unclear by layman standards; changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "These ripple marks are among the most extreme on Earth" In the article body you just say "largest", "extreme" seems hyperbolic.

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - that's it from me, as usual with such articles, it can be a bit hard to follow with all the unfamiliar terms, but I think this is the best that can be done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

HF

I'll look at this later today. Hog Farm _Talk 16:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• " El Niño is sometimes referred to as a scarp." - link or gloss scarp? It's not a well-known term to a lot of readers (including me)

  Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "A site southeast of the Robledo caldera is known as Robledo" - "site" is rather vague; can you be more specific?

  Well, the problem is that it is just a point on a map and so frequently mentioned that I can't omit a mention, but also totally unexplained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Wind has also formed demoiselles[h] and yardangs in the ignimbrites" - Why name both, if you're equating the two items in the note?

  I'm investigating this, stand by... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

  Think I resolved this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• The lead says "Unlike dunes, they do not migrate with the wind and are stationary", but then the aeolian landscapes section discusses " Their wind-driven movement is fast enough that trails abandoned four years before are already partly covered with them". This seems contradictory

  Resolved this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Cerro Blanco is part of the Andean Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ), and one of its southernmost volcanoes" - unclear what this is trying to say. Does it mean that Cerro Blanco is one of the southernmost volcanoes, or that it is part of one of the southernmost volcanoes?

  It means that CB is one of the most southern volcanoes of the CVZ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't need to link the Central Volcanic Zone is back-to-back sentences

  Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• ""Purulla Supersynthem"." - Is this a typo in the source, or is Supersynthem a technical term?

  It's a technical term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "its outcrops are limited to an area Laguna Carachipampa" - missing word(s)?

  Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Not an expert on this topic, so these are largely prose concerns. Hog Farm _Talk 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Nonexpert support, Hog Farm _Talk 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Harry

• Something I often find myself picking up on: round conversion of measurements that aren't intended to be exact figures.
• afterwards came a 2 million year long hiatus need hyphens as a compound adjective (two-million-year-long is modifying hiatus) and I believe "two" should be spelt out per MOS:NUMERAL

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• range between 600–820 °C don't use dashes for ranges if you're using "between". If you want to keep the endash, go with "in the range of"; or keep between and use "between 600 and 820". Btw, to my non-expert eye that looks like quite a large temperature range. Do we know why there's such a wide range?

  Done; AFAIK estimating the temperatures of rocks before they solidified is not a very exact science. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• is the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem" is a little awkward; can we restructure the sentence?

  I've split it, but honestly I don't find it too awkward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• source vent for this eruption has not been found, there is no agreement whether I could be misreading but that looks like a comma splice, or you're missing a word like "and" or "although"

  It was intended to be a comma splice, yes. I see it's bad style so I've put an "and" in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• approximately 4200 years ago I'd have said that should be 4,200 years but I double checked and MOS:DIGITS says it's optional for four-digit numbers as long as it's done consistently so I'll leave it to you.

  Standardized to 4,200 anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• up to 30 metres (98 ft) thick deposits needs hyphens; you can use |adj=on in the convert template to produce the first one.
• temperatures range between 32–67.4 °C (89.6–153.3 °F) same observation as above

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• ranked Cerro Blanco eight in its scale of hazardous volcanoes eight out of what? Is that high?

  Eight most dangerous, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Scientific interest has risen in the 2010s we're in the 2020s now! Switch to past tense.

  Done, although I worry a little that people will misread it as "then but no longer". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• You have a lot of footnotes, which can be distracting. Can anyone of them be culled or incorporated into the text?

  Maybe footnote p could be incorporated, but the others are mostly needed to explain concepts and would disrupt the flow if incorporated, or leave things hard to understand if removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Nothing major. Very well written and informative as usual. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• LGTM. Nothing left that's worth quibbling over. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Coord note

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing one, either, so I've added it to the source review requests box. Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Not a sourcing issue, but from my understanding the "listing" in the infobox is meant to refer to a notable list (eg Seven Summits) rather than a Wikipedia list

  See parameter description in {{Infobox mountain}}: "Name of a relevant list of mountains that the peak belongs to." That could refer to any list and from what I have seen this parameter is most commonly used for Wikipedia lists. Volcanoguy 08:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yeah, that seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  The parameter links to the list of notable lists. If it's being used for Wikipedia lists as you suggest, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  I have to confess that I don't understand that infobox enough to say how it works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lead says over 170 cubic km of tephra, text says about - which is correct?
• The heights and wavelengths of the ripples differ significantly between the lead and text - which is correct?

  Matched lead to article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when/whether you include retrieval date. Ditto ISSN, publication location

  I am pretty sure the article does use retrieval date only for non-academic sources. Added ISSNs but removed locations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  For example retrieval date is included for FN23 but not FN1, ISSN for FN57 but not FN48. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  That's all done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• All-caps should be normalized

  Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• FN81 is dead - what is SCN?

  Replaced, might want to check that the archive works & verifies the content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  PDF is not opening for me. Is there a concern that it would not verify the content? If so, why is it being cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  No, the concern is that the PDF takes a long time to load and sometimes the website is just offline. That's why I added the archive, but it too takes a long time to load. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Conde Serra is missing publisher

  There apparently isn't one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Who was this report submitted to? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  The SEGEMAR archive, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fernandez-Turiel ref is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I am not sure I see it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  It appears that the link is offline this week, but IIRC it seemed to be a conference paper. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  The citation does not show that. Additional detail is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Added some detail. Until the website comes back, I don't think any further detail will be forthcoming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria:Website is now back, but it doesn't have a lot of extra detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

(←) @Nikkimaria: Are you satisfied with the source review? (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 22:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2021 [17].

---

Viatkogorgon

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the first FAC about a stem-mammal (formerly known as "mammal-like reptiles"), specifically a gorgonopsian, the first group of animals that evolved saber-teeth. This is a pretty inconspicuous member of the group, and since it was only named in 1999, it doesn't have the same kind of heavy taxonomic baggage as other, more famous gorgonopsians, and was therefore easier to write about, so most if not all the relevant literature is covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

• File:Kotelnich locality.jpg what's the cc license? Source suggests 4.0 but it's listed on Commons as 3.0?

Changed to 4.0, I think 3.0 was used earlier on the site. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Viatkogorgon 2 .png does the own work claim cover the human figure shape? Reverse image search indicates that the same drawing occurs elsewhere on the web. (t · c) buidhe 02:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

It's by NASA, from the pioneer plaque, therefore PD US government, I've now tagged it as such on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Sauroctonus palate bosses and teeth.jpg I cannot find this image or the others from the same source as the website is not loading correctly for me. Will agf on that one.

Site works for me now, the image is figure 8 in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• You have two pics of the same fossil in the lead image and File:Vjatkogorgon ivakhnenkovi.JPG. The lead image has less glare so I would repeat that if necessary. (t · c) buidhe 02:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

While they are similar, each have their own, mutually exclusive qualities. The one in the taxobox has less glare, so looks visually better, but it is also angled a bit, so the bones get foreshortened. The one under description is uglier, but is more head on, so the bones are more visible. One day we might get better photos so both can be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

HF

Will take a look at this. Hog Farm _Talk 14:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Will do this in a couple chunks

• Was Ivakhnenko involved in the discovery of the holotype, since it was named after him and he seems to be active in this field since he described the assigned specimen?

None of the sources say anything about the circumstances around its excavation, or about why he was honoured, unfortunately. I think he was just important in the particular field. There could possibly be some sources about field work in Russian out there, but nothing I can find or read. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "a more poorly developed greater trochanter (a site for muscle attachment)" - would greater trochanter itself be a better link?

Linked fully, not sure what happened there... FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2018, Kammerer and Masyutin stated that while the early evolution of gorgonopsia is poorly understood. " - sentence fragment

Seems a period was added during the copy-edit, changed back to "In 2018, Kammerer and Masyutin stated that while the early evolution of gorgonopsia is poorly understood, Viatkogorgon and Nochnitsa expand the knowledge of gorgonopsians from the middle Permian or earliest late Permian of Laurasia" etc. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "articular bone has become the malleus ear bone.[12])." - stray ). at the end

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sources appear to all be reliable and well-formatted.

Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 20:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nonexpert support. Hog Farm _Talk 13:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking over...

• Not sure that Saber-toothed cat is the best target article for sabre-teeth but not sure of other options here.

Yeah, I've argued for years on the talk page of that article that the title should be changed to something more inclusive, because "saber toothed cat" in modern usage really only refers to members of the Machairodontinae, (which therefore already have an article), whereas the article covers the saber-toothed niche/ecomorph as a whole, regardless of whether the bearers are "cats" or not, and that is also how it is mainly covered in the literature. But most non-palaeontology nerds seem to be attached to this popular term, so it has been hard to get a sensible vote through. But also due to the lack of an alternative term which is anywhere as catchy. "Saber-toothed ecomorph" is just hard to sell. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think anything is actionable at this point I guess - beyond the scope of this FAC.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Given the assumption the complete specimen is a young individual and a larger (though poorly preserved) skeleton is found, there hasn't been some sort of assumption of larger dimensions of the critter?

Nothing, and I'm pretty surprised the larger specimen has only been mentioned in passing in one paper. Perhaps it will come when the postcranium is redescribed. A problem with this taxon is that the holotype skeleton (seemingly with a cast of the skull) is on a perpetual tour around Europe along with other Russian specimens, so hard to study... FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• While they were abundant, they were morphologically conservative. - "conservative" a bit jargony. Better to write in plain English what it means here

Tried with "morphologically similar", the best fit I could think of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"Varied little in (basic/overall) (shape/morphology)"? 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to implement a variation of that in my next round of edits. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• So there are no assumptions about what the paleoenvironment was at all?

I'll see if I can find more, but the article says, cited to the most recent source (2018) "These mudstones were possibly deposited from suspension in standing water bodies on floodplains or shallow ephemeral lakes, that remained flooded for short periods of time, but the exact environment has not yet been determined." FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Added a bit of context to that section, but there is not much more to come by. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise not seeing any deal-breakers. Prose is dense but many terms and phrases are as plain as they can be. Comprehensive and within striking distance of FA status Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to think of what to replace "conservative" with, and have answered the other points, sadly with no solutions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Answered the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Jens

I already had a look during the Peer Review, and here are my comments for the rest of the article:

• an intercentrum (placed between the centra, or "bodies", of the vertebrae) – Not sure if this is correct. Primitively, a reptile vertebra consist of three elements: The neural arch, and below it, the intercentrum in front and the centrum behind. Those are often still retained in the atlas and axis. I would explain it like this: "placed in front of the centrum" (and avoid "body").

I've removed that entire sentence, as it didn't seem to be so unique, and hard to understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• the atlas (the second neck vertebra) – The atlas is usually the first (C1) and the axis the second (C2). There may be an additional small ossification, the proatlas, in front of the neural arch of the atlas, but that doesn't count as a vertebra as far as I know.

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• As in other gorgonopsians, the atlas (the second neck vertebra) had isolated neural arches, … – I think this is common everywhere, not just in gorgonopsians?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• and lacked integration with the centrum of the axis (the third neck vertebra). – I can't understand this.

Removed, the source didn't specify further. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• The zygapophyses (the articular processes that connected adjacent vertebrae) of the axis were horizontal but became more vertical, beginning by the third vertebra – As you are speaking about all of the neck vertebrae, maybe say "were horizontal in the axis but became more vertical beginning by the third vertebra"?

Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• and were vertical in side view, though they were inclined rearwards, – are they vertical, or are they inclined? This is contradictory. Do you possibly mean "though their rear margin was inclined"?

Changed back to pre copy-edit wording: "The neural spines became somewhat taller beginning at the second third part of the thoracic region, and were vertical in side view, though in the hind part of this region they were inclined rearwards and their front edge became convex (showing the transition from thoracic to lumbar vertebrae)." FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• The position of the zygapophyses would have restricted sideways curve at the base of the tail – can't follow here

Changed "curve" to "movement". Source says "curvature". FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any reason you give angles in degrees for the tail vertebrae but not for other vertebrae? If this should be consistent, I think that just removing them would be an option since the text is already quite detailed.

It's the only places it was given, but removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• more to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look after the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Addressed the above, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• the early evolution of gorgonopsia – upper case?

Oops, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• which indicated an initial stage of swimming adaptations – what does "initial" mean here? That gorgonopsians had these "swimming" adaptations ancestrally?

I'm pretty sure he's rather implying it was on its way to becoming more aquatic, he says "However, certain of its features are either poorly understood or unique. First and foremost, this concerns some characteristics of the locomotor apparatus that suggest an initial stage of adaptation for swimming". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I would argue we can't know if it was on its way to become more aquatic; this would imply that it would have become even more aquatic if evolution had more time. But we can possibly say it was more aquatic than other gorgonopsians. I would simply get rid of the "initial" here. Maybe this can be formulated much simpler, e.g. "Some of these features could have been adaptations for swimming, while other features where …"

Yeah, that's what I think Tatarinov was arguing, though, reflecting outdated views of evolution, that these were "steps" towards an end goal. I've removed "initial" for now, to not add too much retroactive correction. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• while other features were consistent with those commonly seen in large predators of the Permian. – All large predators of the Permian considered? Sounds suspicious, but ok if the source makes this claim.

He just says "Other features of Viatkogorgon are characteristic of the common gorgonopian adaptive pattern of a large Late Permian predator". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I would write something like "while other features were characteristic for gorgonopsians in general", seems to be closer to what the source says?

Said "those commonly seen in its group" to make it unspecific. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• He found the unique gastralia to have been acquired secondarily (convergent evolution), – can this be better explained? Does it mean that gastralia are absent in other therapsids?

Tatarinov believed Viatkogorgon was unique in having gastralia, but since later sources only say it's a "rare" feature, I'm not sure what to do. He didn't elaborate on it either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I decided to just remove that sentence, don't think it added much, and it is confusing and badly explained even in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• I see that the next sentence says "theriodonts". But this is already in the next paragraph; maybe that information can come earlier?

Think it was solved by removing the earlier mention. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• And, again concerning the sentence above: The section is about motion, how do the gastralia fit inside? Are you thinking about the motions involved in breathing?

This is actually so odd that I didn't state it outright in the article, but Tatarinov apparently thought the presence of gastralia were in themselves indicative of swimming. He wrote: "The affinity of Viatkogorgon for aquatic environments is corroborated by the presence of gastralia", but without elaborating why. It of course seems strange, considering all the terrestrial animals that have gastralia. I imagine he had some unorthodox/old fashioned ideas that will probably be abandoned in an eventual redescription of the skeleton. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I would, in general, try to make it more clear that these are hypotheses proposed by this single author. With writing "Tatarinov hypothesised that gastralia were adaptations for swimming", I think it would be ok to include it; other possibly dubious or outdated statements are included as well in any case.

Said "Tatarinov hypothesized these features to be adaptations for swimming" after the mention of gastralia and other features in the motion section. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Antón stated in 2013 that while the skeletons of gorgonopsians were basically similar to those of reptiles, their stance was far more upright than in synapsids, like pelycosaurs, which were more sprawling. – I can't follow this one. Gorgonopsians are synapsids? It is confusing that you seem to compare with reptiles and pelycosaurs at the same time.

Changed to "more primitive synapsids", if that's better. The source says "The post-cranial skeleton is again essentially reptilian, but it reveals a far more upright stance than in more primitive, sprawling synapsids such as the pelycosaurs.". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

With "reptilian", he appears to refer to the primitive reptilian condition (not reptilians as a whole)? If so, maybe make this clear?

Changed to "post-cranial skeletons of gorgonopsians were basically reptilian". FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• the tail muscles (such as the caudofemoralis) were important in flexion of the hindlimb – Shouldn't it be "retraction" instead of "flexion"?

That's what Antón says, "As in other reptiles, the musculature of the tail, in particular the caudo-femoral muscles, was a very important part of the flexion of the hind limb, so that the tail was not there merely for balance, as has become the case in mammals." FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, then we need to stick with the source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Their feet were more symmetrical than those of reptiles, – which reptiles? I assume lepidosauromorphs? There are certainly reptiles with symmetrical pedes.¨

Antón just says "The reduction in their phalangeal formula compared to the primitive reptilian condition is seen as an adaptation to make their feet more symmetrical, and their contact with the ground more efficient, as in cursorial mammals.". What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it would help to make clear that he is referring to the primitive reptilian condition, not reptiles in general.

Said "Their feet were more symmetrical compared to the reptilian condition". FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• making contact with the ground more efficient, – I don't think that makes sense. I would argue that, in slow moving animals, ground contact is longer and therefore more efficient because muscles have more time to work. Maybe say "allowing for a more rapid locomotion" or something instead, depending on what the source says?

As above, the source only says "is seen as an adaptation to make their feet more symmetrical, and their contact with the ground more efficient, as in cursorial mammals." FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, the term "efficient" is highly ambiguous (what does it mean? Faster locomotion? Energy efficient?), but is commonly used like this in older literature; nothing we can do about. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, he is probably oversimplifying a lot because it's just a summary of studies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• or the early Lopingian epoch of the late Permian. – Lopingian and "late Permian", isn't that the same? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Changed to "early late Permian", but the source uses "early Lopingian". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Addressed the above, Jens Lallensack, though some of them have not been resolved, pending further input. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

• You and I differ on this, as I recall, but I prefer using full first names when possible. It can be a real pain to try to figure them out after the fact.

I wouldn't say I disagree, but it can be hard to be consistent (which is often demanded) since some papers don't provide the full names of the authors, but I've managed to find them here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• For works with multiple authors, I suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter. It's not required by any measure, but the ampersands look nice and do a good job of breaking up the author names.

Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• #2: Any identifying number, such as a DOI, ISSN, or OCLC?

I believe the Russian Paleontological Journal is now defunct, so no such luck as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Not defunct apparently, but still can't find those identifiers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the article Paleontological Journal, there are at least ISSNs. But it's not a big deal—the fact that there is an article on the journal means that it will be easy enough for an interested person to figure out where copies are. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to add the rest, but just don't know how to find them... FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• #4: Ditto.

Same as above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• #5: Ditto. Also, it looks like the link links to only an abstract.

This one I could find an ISSN for, but removed link to abstract. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• #10: Same as #2 & #4.

Nothing I could find, also that journal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Antón 2013: Is the "1st ed." necessary? That is, is there a second edition that this is distinct from? If yes, why is the first edition being used instead of the second?

Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

This version looked at. FunkMonk, nits above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. One comment above, but nothing that needs to be dealt with. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• gorgonopsian therapsid. This is against MOS:SEAOFBLUE.

Kindly done by Hemiauchenia. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the skull alone is 14 cm (5.5 in), making Viatkogorgon a relatively small gorgonopsian". Why is the size based on the skull alone?

Rejigged the text so that this isn't implied. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The assigned specimen". I assume this refers to the larger specimen but why "assigned"?

Any specimen that is found to group within an already defined species is assigned to that species. Made it clearer in the intro by using the term earlier, when that specimen is first mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "recurved". Can this term be linked?

No article to link, but explained it as "(curved backwards)". FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Tatarinov only described the skull of Viatkogorgon in the 1999 article, wherein he also named the new scylacosaur genus Kotelcephalon, because the article was restricted in volume but preliminarily described the postcranium in 2004." I am not sure what you are saying here - the 1999 article only described the skull as he had a limited number of words but followed up with a further article in 2004?

Yeah, what you said, I think the sentence was maybe oversimplified, added a comma and a "he", does the following look clearer? ", because the article was restricted in volume, but he preliminarily described the postcranium in 2004" FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "and stated a detailed description of the postcranium". I think that "stated that" would be clearer - or is leaving out "that" AmerEng?

Added, not sure if there is any variation in that regard. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2019, the Russian paleontologist Yulia A. Suchkova and Golubev". "paleontologists"?

Made it plural, though I wrote it this way because Golubev was already presented earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• "stated that despite the small size of the then recently named therocephalian Gorynychus from Kotelnich, it would have shared its niche as a dominant predator with Viatkogorgon. They supported this interpretation with the fact that of all the Permian localities of Eastern Europe, bones with carnivore tooth-marks have only been found in the Sundyr-1 locality, from where a Gorynychus species is known." I am not clear what you are saying here. Does the fact that carnivore tooth-marks have only been found in the Gorynychus area imply that there are no known victims of Viatkogorgon - or that Viatkogorgon consumed their victims including bones - and why does this suggest that Gorynychus was co-dominant? Also, I see that the Gorynychus article says that it was wolf size. I do not see a size estimate for Viatkogorgon in the Description section, but in the illustration it looks to me smaller than a wolf, whereas you say Viatkogorgon was larger. I am a bit confused, but that may be because I have misread something.

Removed a large portion of this text, because it seems to be larely irrelevant here at second look (more relevant to Gorynychus). The species of Gorynychus that lived alongside Viatkogorgon was smaller than the one stated to be "the size of a wolf" anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Are you saying that Viatkogorgon was the dominant predator in the area even though it was so small?

Sentence simplified so it doesn't say that anymore, it is implied in the source, but not stated directly. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• I have not fully read the detailed analysis of the skeleton as I am too ignorant to understand it. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look over the weekend. If anything about the skeleton is particularly hard to understand, let me know. The paragraph about size shouldn't be too technical. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The description of the skeleton is very hard for a non-expert to understand because it has several words in each sentence which only an expert would know. This cannot be helped as you could not describe the skeleton without using technicalities. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a problem may be that most of them are explained under history, where they are first mentioned. So it is hoped the reader would remember the meaning of some of the terms by then, but yeah, it's probably a bit much to ask. Addressed the rest above. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2021 [18].

---

Legend Entertainment

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a video game company that had a good run in the 1990s, mainly in adventure games. They were heirs to the highly acclaimed interactive fiction studio Infocom, and showed early signs of impact with this successor company. But they were always lesser known compared to Sierra and LucasArts, who competed in the same space, before the adventure game market collapsed in North America in the late 1990s.

A lot of these types of articles slip through the cracks because the subjects were effectively "gone" by the time the internet hit mainstream. But I see these types of subjects as essential to Wikipedia's mission to preserve knowledge, as readers would otherwise have to cobble the story together from various online and offline sources. I've done the work of assembling those sources, and I believe the article is very well-sourced, thorough, and complete. I also recently completed a peer review to get it ready for FA. (Big thanks to IceWelder and Urve for their reviews.) The last FA was closed on a procedural issue when I jumped the gun, but I'm confident the article meets the FA criteria as is. I'll continue to work on this to help it reach even higher standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the review! Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from IceWelder

I haven't found the time to re-review the article yet. Please ping me if I don't by Sunday. IceWelder [✉] 12:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Content

Most of my concerns were already resolved during the peer review. I did a few quick fixes just now that were faster done than spelled out. These are my remaining thoughts:

• The infobox lists American Systems Corporation as Legend's parent for four years but the article does not make clear whether the company had a controlling interest in Legend. Please clarify whether is this was a minority or majority holding. In the former case, it should not be considered a parent.
• Of the many designers noted in the History section, why are Meretzky and Lindner specifically pointed out in the infobox as key persons? For example, did Lindner have a greater impact on the company than Mark Poesch?
• The first sentence of the lead reads that Legend is "best known for their complex and distinctive adventure titles". This rather bold statement does not appear to be explicitly mentioned/sourced in the article body.
• I still question whether the article really needs the accolades column in the games table. As I stated in the PR, the individual qualities of the awards are not clear, so a listing like this might incorrectly represent the quality of the games based on a few hand-picked awards. Removing the awards column would also make the table much more concise and accessible. Please reconsider whether such a column is necessary.
• The external link to korseby.net feels superfluous as it is just some game reviews, and I believe that it should be removed. The inclusion of waitingforgo.com should also be reconsidered; in my opinion, MobyGames should suffice.

Sources

I have performed a source review and found that most of the sources are reliable. Outliers are the unreliable TechRaptor (part of ref #5), which should be removed/replaced; and the questionable Adventure Collective (ref #7), although it likely still passes as it appears to be a legitimate interview. I have performed several fixes on the cite templates themselves and repaired the publication dates of two misdated GameSpot articles. I have not performed spot checks for verification due to time constraints.

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried to address all of these. The "parent company" thing is a little ambiguous. The best I could find is this article that suggests ASC provided most of the funding, which is elaborated in a (questionably/situationally reliable) interview at the Digital Antiquarian. The list of key people includes anyone at Legend who has a Wikipedia article (and meets the WP:GNG), and Mark Poesch doesn't quite appear to make the cut (though he does get mentioned as a director at the company). I am not too picky about infoboxes and find that readers get more from reading the actual information in context. So I'm fine as long as the article WP:PRESERVEs information about these people/partners in prose, if you still want to adjust the Infobox for precision and accuracy. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I think the infobox is fine. Also thanks for your other changes. I would still like to know your stance on the accolades column, since I see you've kept it just now. IceWelder [✉] 17:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

My preference is to err on the side of WP:PRESERVEing factual information there. Adding a column to the games list seemed like an efficient way to present it. There are other ways to present it, but this seemed better than a stand-alone list (deprives readers of context, which only comes from comparing the list to the article), versus in the prose itself (calling out each one individually starts to clutter the narrative). Just in case you're suggesting we remove it completely, I generally don't think it's a good idea to start removing WP:VERIFIABLE accolades from third party sources. In this case, it would prevent readers from understanding what this studio contributed to the industry and artform. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this insight. I usually advocate for listing such quantities of awards only the games' separate articles, not the developer's. It is generally uncommon to list any product-specific awards on the developer's article unless contextually relevant or impactful (as in BAFTA, TGA, AIAS, etc. awards), otherwise the scope can get wildly out of hand. However, if you believe that the list in its current form is for the better of the article, I shall not stand in your way and am happy to support the nomination. IceWelder [✉] 09:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I figure this one works because it's a relatively short list. Thanks again for the review, and happy editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Review Support by David Fuchs

Forthcoming by this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping on this, and take your time. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• General and prose:
  • The team would continue to expand their game engine, adapting to the popularity of the mouse and the increased media storage of the compact disc.—this line feels weirdly placed considering the next subsection specifically talks about being the first to take advantage of the compact disc, and talks about the shift from traditional text adventures to point-and-click games. Feels like you're giving us a short version of information you then repeat immediately afterwards.
    • Consolidated this into the following section. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sold on the quotes from Bates; at times, they feel like they're excessively privileging his POV by being quoted verbatim, and they have the side effect of feeling kind of awkward in the prose since it has to fit around his constructions rather than summarizing the information.
    • I removed some of the quotes and re-worked others. Bates was the head of the studio, so I tried to emphasize areas where he was thinking on behalf of the company in a business/strategic role. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need the specific mentions of what awards CGW gave to Eric the Unready, especially since it's repeated in the table at the end of the article.
    • Consolidated this for flow. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    • On that topic, I find the games table a bit tough to read. I would place all the awards in a single cell for each game, and divide the large Legend Entertainment publisher and repeat it for each game so that you can easily scan left-to-right and figure out what games belong to what entry on the right.
      • Tried to fix this. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• Media:
  • Images appropriately sourced, tagged, and licensed.
• References:
  • Checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, 24, 26, 30, 35, 37, 40, 60, 66
    • There are some refs to books that don't have page numbers, e.g. refs 1, 4, 12, etc. While they do link to the Google excerpt or book overview, they should still include the page numbers.
  • Ref 6 gives Bates the quote ...told investors that "there was still life in the adventure genre, but that it needed more than just text" but I think the quotes imply this was literally what he said verbatim to the investors, when the interview is years later Bates talking to another publication.
  • Not sure refs 15 and 16 adequately support "became one of Legend's most critically acclaimed titles".
  • Did not otherwise spot issues with close paraphrasing or improper attribution/failed verification.
  • There's no source for co-development support note [a] on Terminator 3. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, are you going to attend to these? TBH I'm close to archiving this as it seems to have stalled but if you can get right onto it there might be cause to leave it open longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know his this completely slipped my mind, but I'm eager to still bring this up to FA and finish this up. Working on it immediately. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• David Fuchs: Worked through these one at a time. I added some responses in-line, just for your own clarity. I do get different advice on how to format the table, but hopefully that's an improvement from what was there before. Thanks for the review and let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

No no, I wasn't just completing the problems for you before I had an edit conflict with you that solved everything I just did. I wasn't here at all, actually. Panini!^🥪 17:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The attempted save is appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support with the above addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks again for the review. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from nominator

This has been open for a month, and I wanted to see how the process was doing. Willing to work on this more if need be, but I feel confident that it's close to done. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Now that it has a second general support I have listed it for another general review and for the sourcing to be checked. Let's see if either gets picked up. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do. Hog Farm _Talk 14:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is more of a negotiable question, as I don't know the firm answer, but is GOG.com (what looks like a distribution platform ala Steam to me) a great source? Open question
• " Robinson, Spider (December 7, 2000). "An essay on the making of the CD, "Belaboring the Obvious"". Archived from the original on November 14, 2006. Retrieved March 7, 2021 – via Spiderrobinson.com." - yes, this is self-published, but you could put (self-published) or use the website it comes from. (Is okay from a reliable perspective as Robinson is a reasonable source on this topic)
• Recommend checking on worldcat to see if Computer Gaming World, Compute, etc. (all of the magazines, periodicals, etc) have ISSN or OCLC identifiers. Useful for identifying exactly which publication is being cited, especially since some of those older computer/video gaming publications have similar names

Spot checks:

• "who created a new division called Random Soft to enter the multimedia software industry" - checks out
• "This led to new opportunities for Legend, working with publisher Take-Two Interactive for Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, and working with Accolade for Star Control 3" - checks out
• " In 1998, Legend released a game adaptation of John Saul's Blackstone Chronicles, which ultimately became their final adventure game release." - checks out
• "By the end of 1992, Legend were able to buy back American Systems Corporation's stake in the company" - source only says that they intended to do so, not that they did
• "The team would continue to expand their game engine, adapting to the popularity of the mouse and the increased media storage of the compact disc" - checks out

No copyright issues detected. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. GOG is appropriate in some circumstances, but this was easy to change with more independent sources. I tweaked the reference template for the Spider Robinson comment, but if I'm doing it wrong, I might need you to spell out the exact form to present this. I also tried to add a few ISSN/OCLC numbers where I could find them. The buy-back seems to be supported by the source, which refers to a purchase agreement. Hopefully with those changes, we're good enough to pass the review. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Passing source review - the new formatting for the Robinson cite works. AGF that ISSNs, etc. are included appropriately. Hog Farm _Talk 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "based on Demons Don't Dream" could say who wrote this, likewise Gateway.
• "Infocom had stumbled" bit colloquial.
• "notably experienced developer and author Steve Meretzky" could you expand on why you call him "notably experienced"?
• "adventure game engine at" put "game" into the link.
• "in the company,[9] and the company" repetitive.
• "the company was selling enough games to easily sustain themselves" singular company so presumably that should be "itself" rather than "themselves"?
• Is there a reason why the portrait images aren't upright?
• "would continue to" -> "continued to".
• "less than 25,000" fewer.
• "seemed to" according to whom?
• "Writer Steve Meretzky also" You've already introduced him so just "Meretzky also" is fine here.
• There seems to be a lot of repetition of first names for unambiguous repeats of people, typically we just use surnames in subsequent namechecks.
• Table could use a caption.
• In a sortable table, usually linked items are linked every time because after a sort, there's no guarantee the linked item will appear first.
• ISBNs could be represented consistently.

That's all on a quick read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• I was able to incorporate your suggestions. Thanks for the review, and let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks again. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from nominator

@TFA coordinators: : Can I have some seratonin? Shooterwalker (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 13:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2021 [19].

---

The Trundle

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an archaeological site in Sussex that contains an Iron Age hillfort and a Neolithic causewayed enclosure. Causewayed enclosures were new to archaeology in the 1920s and it was one of the first to be found and excavated, and also one of the first archaeological sites to be identified by aerial photographs, now a standard procedure. This is the third causewayed enclosure site I've brought to FAC; the others, for comparison, are Knap Hill and Whitehawk Camp. Thanks are due to Dudley Miles, who provided a thorough talk page review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Open_Street_Map_Chichester_District.png: is there a link to the OSM source, and is the uploader the sole contributor at that source?

  No idea -- this image predates my involvement with the article. The uploader hasn't been active in eight years. I've removed the map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:The_Trundle_aerial_photo_1925.jpg: what does the source say about the provenance of this image?

  Crown copyright. See here for a page image; it's the first page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:St_Roc's_Hill_1723_from_William_Stukeley's_Itinerarium_Curiosum.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:St_Roche's_Hill_Sussex_by_T_King_from_William_Hayley_Mason_Goodwood_1839.jpg

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:The_Trundle_annotated_1928_and_1930_dig.jpg: can the caption be expanded to provide more detail on what the different abbreviations refer to? Ditto File:The_Trundle_east_gate_1930_excavations_annotated.jpg.

  The first one does try to do that; is there anything you think it's missing? For the east gate, the abbreviations are discussed in the text. I could add "see text for an explanation of the abbreviations" if that would address the issue; I guess I assumed that a reader would look to the text for explanations. I don't think it would be worth trying to put all the information in the caption -- it would be long enough to look quite ungainly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  TD and CI are mentioned, but what are they? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Added an explanation of CI through CIV to the caption. I don't see a TD -- do you mean TT? TT is described in the caption. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Leaning support from Richard Nevell

I'm very exited to see this article at FAC; Mike's edits have been cropping up on my watchlist and it's been great to see the article improve so much. I hope to find time read the article properly, but on the subject of the sourcing the article looks to be using the best available sources. I do have one (trivial) question at this stage. Is there a particular reason Eliot Cecil Curwen's name is written as E. C. Curwen in the body of the article whereas other archaeologists and historians are given their full names rather than initials (eg: Hadrian Allcroft, Owen Bedwin, Stuart Piggott)? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• I gather his father’s name was also Eliot, and I would guess that’s why he was nearly always “E.C. Curwen” when publishing articles. I figured it was better to give his name as he would give it professionally. I think, but I’m not certain, that he was known as Cecil, not Eliot, so I would want to make it “E. Cecil Curwin” if we do change it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  It didn't help matters that Eliot and Eliot Cecil both conducted fieldwork together and wrote about it! E. C. Curwen's papers in the Sussex Archaeological Collections on the work at the Trundle credit him as E. Cecil Curwen. In case this article is changed in this article that might be the way to do it, as you suggested, but I can't say I'm fussed either way, I was just curious! Richard Nevell (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  I missed that; I thought he was E.C. in the SAC articles. I’m not near my books at the moment but will check this evening and will make the change then. I’ll like to stub an article on E.C.; I believe there’s an obit of him in one of the archaeology journals but have not laid my hands on it yet. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done; thanks for the heads up on that! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

  Richard, just checking to see if you had any plans to come back to review this -- it would be great to get a review from someone with a professional background in archaeology. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I've finally found the time the article deserves. The article made a good first impression, and it certainly stands up to scrutiny. It addresses the topic very well, giving a good level of detail about the site and providing context. The Trundle has a complex history and it is very well handled. I like the way the evolving interpretations of the site and later revisions are handled throughout. This approach works very well. The use of illustrations is excellent, with the aerial photographs and marked up images. The DTM image was added midway through based on openly licensed data. I don't know if that was the result of Mike' efforts or just very good timing from the uploader, but it definitely enhances the article.

Below I have made some suggestions for adjusting the content. The comments are arranged by section, and most are a slight change in emphasis. There are a couple of sources (Reynolds 2009 and Hamilton & Manley 2001) which might be worth checking for relevant information. I can't access the useful bits of the Reynolds book, and I've only skimmed Hamilton & Manley but it does mention the Trundle a few times.

Lead

• Move date the date the fort was in use into the first paragraph?

  Currently the dates for both the hillfort ("about 500 BC to 100 BC") and the causewayed enclosure ("probably constructed no earlier than the mid-fourth millennium BC") are in the second paragraph of the lead; the dates in the lead are intended to give the reader the rough time period we're talking about. Are you thinking that something similar to help readers with "Iron Age" would be good? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pretty much, it only stands out because there's a date range for the causewayed enclosure in the first paragraph but not the hillfort. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Had a go at this. I was hesitant to put too much in the lead that was background information as opposed to information directly relating to the Trundle itself, but I think this works. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the hillfort is still a substantial earthwork": would it be useful to mention briefly that that banks would have been topped by timber palisades and there would have been structures inside? I’m happy to leave it to your discretion how much detail to include in the lead.

  I left this sort of thing out because the hillfort itself has had very little investigation. I don't recall one of my sources saying it would have had palisades, but I don't have a good general reference for the Iron Age to hand -- I've got a copy of Cunliffe's Iron Age Communities on order, but it's been delayed. Do you have a source I could use for anything like this? I would have to add it in the body too, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  On reflection, I'd leave out mention of a palisade. As you say, there hasn't been enough investigation at the hillfort to demonstrate that, and checking Hillforts: Britain, Ireland and the Nearer Continent (2019) a palisade was one of a range of options when enclosing a hillfort. It does appear to be common, but I over-generalised. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  The generalisation is also found in a Historic England document ("Ramparts sometimes had timber frames and were originally topped with timber palisades") but I think it still makes sense to leave that out, or if it is mentioned it could be in the body of the article and phrased in general terms, rather than the lead. The discovery of house platforms by the 1995 survey might still be worth alluding to in the lead. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Indicate what is meant by "These early digs established a date of about 500 BC to 100 BC for the hillfort", specifically whether this is the foundation of the site or the period of its use.

  I made it "established a construction date"; does that do it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  It certainly does. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’d be tempted to add a sentence in the lead noting that the site was occasionally used as a meeting place in the post-medieval period, but without going into detail. It wouldn’t be necessary, for example to list the militia and masonic meetings.

  Good idea; added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Background

• "The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms" I don’t think it will be obvious to the reader why they would be interpreted as military sites. Perhaps a slight change of emphasis to something along the lines of “Early interpretations suggested a military role, though the sites were difficult to explain”? I’m sure there’s a better way of phrasing it, but I assume what’s meant is that archaeologists of the time assumed they were military sites, but were puzzled as to how they worked.

  See next response. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  The rewording certainly helps, but my thinking is more along the lines of historiography. Why is the starting point assessing the site in military terms? That might be a difficult one to find discussions for. From my admittedly limited knowledge of the history of archaeology, a quite a few people involved in early excavations had a military background which influenced their thinking. If there isn't something which addresses the historiography of causewayed enclosures, then it's not a point that can be made in the article, but I thought I'd suggest it in case something is possible. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I see -- yes, would be interesting but I don't recall seeing anything like that in the early sources. The question is first raised by Maud Cunnington in regard to Knap Hill; she presumably had no military background but on the other hand would have read works by people like Augustus Pitt Rivers. I'll keep an eye out but I have nothing to hand. That would also be an interesting area to cover in the overall causewayed enclosure article, which I'd like to get to one day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The causeways are difficult to explain in military terms" "They were constructed in a short time": does this mean individual causewayed enclosures were built quickly, or that the phenomenon itself happened within a relatively short time frame? The latterformer seems to be what is meant, but a slight change of wording could make it clearer.

  I've tried a rewording that I hope addresses both these points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I just realised I copied the wrong bit! I've added the bit of text I meant to refer to above. I tied myself in a know with this one. Richard Nevell (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Hillforts began to appear in Britain early in the Iron Age." That certainly when they became more common, but the earliest examples date from the Late Bronze Age. See Hamilton, Sue; Manley, John (2001). "Hillforts, monumentality and place: a chronological and topographic review of first millennium BC hillforts of south-east England". European Journal of Archaeology. 4 (1): 7–42. doi:10.1179/eja.2001.4.1.7. ISSN 1461-9571.

  I'd like to update the statement in the article but I don't have access to that source. Can I make it "Hillforts began to appear in Britain late in the Bronze Age, in the late second millennium BC" and cite that paper? What page range should I cite if so? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for sending that paper; I've now updated the wording in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Site and interpretation

• Excellent use of the aerial photo. I think it would be useful to expand the caption to indicate to the reader which bit is the hillfort and which is the causewayed enclosure. It’s clear from the accompanying paragraphs, but since this draws the eye it would be worthwhile making it easy to understand independently.

  Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The ditches enclose an area of about 5.66 ha" This might be a push, but do you have any way to give context? Does this make this one of the bigger hillforts in Sussex (or a given region) or is it about average?

  I recall some discussion of area but I think it was only for the biggest sites. I'll have to defer this and look through my references; I'll get back to you on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Oswald's The Creation of Monuments has a section on the area of causewayed enclosures (pp. 72-75.). They divide them into small, medium and large, but it's a fairly tentative division, and unfortunately the Trundle lies right on the boundary between medium (up to 5.5 ha) and large (6 ha and over) so I would hesitate to unequivocally assign it to "medium sized". I can send you copies of the pages if you'd like to see the discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd be curious to see the discussion if you have time to send the pages over (there's certainly no rush). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've emailed them -- let me know if you see something there that we could use. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Antiquarian and archaeological investigations

• I think it would be worth adding that the Duke of Richmond owned the land and gave permission to E.C. Curwen to dig. (Curwen 1929, 35). I think it’s also interesting that one labourer was hired to do the work and they also worked with Curwen on his excavations at the Caburn. Whether that’s worth including is another matter, but I’d be tempted.

  I've now mentioned the Duke. I agree it would be nice to mention the labourer but I don't see how to do it; I wonder if there are historiographic articles on the social relations of the early archaeologists, so many of whom were gentlemen amateurs. I did notice a while ago that Curwen frequently used Robert Gurd to draw his plans and sketch the pottery, and was able to stub an article on him. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’m a little disappointed that the sources don’t discuss the significance of the deliberate infilling of ditches, but we have to work with the limitations of the source!

  I give Curwen's opinion that it was the Iron Age builders who did that, in order to flatten the ground within the hillfort -- or do you mean further discussion beyond that? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I was very much thinking with my hat on as someone who studies destruction and the motivations, eg: to reuse the area for agriculture/while building the hillfort; ritual 'closing' of the site, etc. Just a general interest on my part, not something actionable! Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• When discussing Pit 2 and its purpose ("both pits formed an integral part of the scheme of defence of the two entrances") a recent paper in The Archaeological Journal (Pope, Rachel; Mason, Richard; Hamilton, Derek; Rule, Eddie; Swogger, John (2020-07-02). "Hillfort gate-mechanisms: a contextual, architectural reassessment of Eddisbury, Hembury, and Cadbury hillforts". Archaeological Journal. 177 (2): 339–407. doi:10.1080/00665983.2019.1711301. ISSN 0066-5983.) provides an important counterpoint, essentially shifting the interpretation from defence to agriculture.

  I see they argue that Hembury's entranceways were designed for animal funnelling, but as far as I can see the only relevant reference to the Trundle is on p. 381, where they suggest that the "great gate" at the Trundle may have needed an iron pivot. I've added a mention of that (in the section on Curwen's second dig, since that's where he talks about the odd nature of the huge postholes). Re agricultural use, I added something to the background section, since there's no explicit discussion of this in the individual excavation reports and Pope doesn't include the Trundle in the discussion of entrances designed to funnel animals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Which researchers/institutions were involved in the Gathering Time project?

  Not sure what you're asking for here -- the three authors are listed in the citation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  With earlier work, the names of those involved was prominent in the text (Curwen, Bedwin & Aldsworth, Oswald etc) but with Gathering Time the absence was a notable contrast. My thinking is that it would be good to add them in so that the people involved are given similar prominence, or if there are too many key figures (three is probably the upper limit) give the institutions involved. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough; I've now credited them in the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the body is likely to have been that of a criminal executed nearby, between 1000 AD and 1825 AD" I recommend making it clear that this is Aldsworth’s suggestion. I can’t see what it says in the snippet, but the burial seems to be mentioned in Reynold’s book (Reynolds, Andrew (2009). Anglo-Saxon Deviant Burials. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-954455-4.), so there may be other views about the age.

  I've clarified that this is Aldsworth's suggestion. I don't have Reynolds; do you think I need to look at that? Searching for "Trundle" in GBooks only finds that one mention, in the form of a citation, near the end of the book, which makes me doubt there was any discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  The Google snippet view does make it tricky. My hunch is that the Trundle is in the bibliography because Reynolds suggests the burial is early medieval, and that perhaps the OCR missed it earlier in the book or is incomplete. I've seem works where chunks are missing from the preview. But, based on the available info I'd say don't go out of your way to track it down as it's likely to be only a fleeting mention if at all. Maybe one to keep an eye on for the future, but certainly not a serious omission (if it even rises to one at all). Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• I’d like to see the earthwork survey have its own section, rather than grouped under ‘other’, explaining the context (who/which organisations were involved, why it was carried out) and the main conclusions. The most important aspect seems to be the discovery of "Scattered around the interior, traces of some fifteen possible house platforms" (Oswald 1995, 14). That should be mentioned, regardless of whether there's a separate section as houses and implied domestic activity aren't mentioned elsewhere.

  I've added a mention of the house platforms -- that was a serious omission, I agree. Re splitting the earthwork survey: are you referring to the geophysical surveys? Or something else referenced in Oswald's 1995 review? The "other" section is already pretty short so I used it as a grab bag for everything not significant enough for its own section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I was thinking that the 1995 work could be separated, leaving the rest (including the geophysical surveys) in the 'other' section. The new section could have a couple of sentences of extra detail, mentioning: it was part of a bigger project recording Neolithic sites; though its primary aim was to record the causewayed enclosure, the survey also included the hillfort as an integral part of the site; the identification of the house platforms as an important finding.

  On reflection, I think that could probably be distilled into another sentence, and rather than having two very short sections, it makes sense to keep it as one more substantial section. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Added a bit, and also realized I had not mentioned Oswald's note of three possible Roman building platforms, so I put that in the site section too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Preservation and presentation

• Isn’t it part of the South Downs National Park?
• It might be worth noting that public access is possible and there are several walking routes leading to the site.

  Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Once again, good job with this article, it's a very good handling of the topic. While there are more than a handful of points above, I consider them minor and I look forward to supporting the article. A fair few of the points are phrased as suggestions, so please do feel free to take or leave them. Over to you, and I hope the feedback helps. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful review! I've replied to some points above and will pick this up again tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard, I think I've now replied to every point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard -- added a couple more replies above on the remaining points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Well that's everything taken care of as far as I'm concerned. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• As Mike says, I have previously reviewed this first rate article. I have a few minor comments on re-reading it.
• The word "site" seems to be repeated rather often, including six times in the short second paragraph.

  It's a hard word to avoid! I've had a go at rewording that paragraph and one other where it was frequently used; is that better? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• " In a few cases enclosures that had already been built continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." I am not sure you need "that had already been built".

  Agreed; reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "parliament". This is usually capitalised when referring to a particular parliament. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks again for the review, and for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Placeholder - need to sleep now but will look tomorrow (in several hours) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• A descriptor for E. Cecil Curwen? Ditto William Crawley, William Hayley Mason and O. G. S. Crawford.

  Added for Curwen and Crawford. Cawley's a politician and the text says he was speaking in Parliament, so I was hoping we could leave this to the reader to deduce. Mason was the librarian of the nearby Goodwood estate, according to the frontispiece of his book, but I don't think it adds anything to say who he was. Or I could put it in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

valid points Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• What's a foxhole?

  A hole dug for defensive military purposes. I've linked to our article on it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Pity we don't have a drone shot of the place...

  It is indeed! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Actually unless I am missing something, I don't get a sense of what is immediately around the site - is it in fields, a suburb or what?

  The sources I have don't describe the surroundings beyond saying that the racecourse is next to it. If you're curious, search Google Maps for "Goodwood Racecourse" and then look a little to the west and you'll see the distinctive shape of the ramparts. I don't think I can add much to the article without a source, though. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

And for the support! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PM

G'day Mike, great article. A few comments:

Lead

• you could link aerial photography

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Body

• perhaps "an iron age hillfort"→"an Iron Age hillfort" and link Iron Age? Not sure what your approach is to linking in the lead and again at first mention in the body

  Done; I generally try to do exactly that, but am not always consistent about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• there is some tension between the description of causeway enclosures as being built "from shortly before 3700 BC until about 3300 BC" (is this just in the British Isles) and "from before 4000 BC in northern France, to shortly before 3000 BC in northern Germany, Denmark, and Poland. The enclosures in southern Britain continued to be built for at least 200 years (after when?), and in a few cases they continued to be used as late as 3300 to 3200 BC." perhaps it could be more clearly explained what period they were built in the southern British Isles?

  I'll have to look at this later this week -- I'm away from most of my sources at the moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've reorganized this a bit and I hope it's now clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• if Iron Age in linked at the beginning of the Body, then the link at the beginning of the third para of the Background should probably be dropped

  That one links specifically to the British Iron Age so I think it's worth keeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• perhaps "least four circular or partly concentric circular ditches"

  I'm not sure about this -- "partly" is intended to refer to shape of the ditches, since a spiral isn't really a circle, and since the shapes are not fully known. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• perhaps "Concentric with this is a second ditch that lies a short distance outside the innermost ditch"

  Done, with some associated rewording. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "This part of the site" which part? The "further early earthworks"?

  The entire causewayed enclosure, at least in its original incarnation. Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• link Gibbeting

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "were built during the World War II"

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• should neolithic have an initial capital? There are several instances of this.

  All should now be fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• consider moving the link to sherd to Glossary of archaeology#potsherd and link at first mention

  Much better link; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• For crouched burial suggest linking Burial#Body positioning

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• link phallus?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• link Rescue archaeology to rescue excavation

  Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "There was at one time a gibbet on the Trundle; it appears on an OS map in 1813, but had been removed by 1825." is partially redundant, I would describe the gibbet fully when first introduced, then just mention the gibbet in connection to the grave at this point

  Well spotted; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources (not a source review)

• a few sources could do with an ISSN or OCLC identifier to assist with verification

  Added the OCLCs to the books without ISBNs. I haven't added ISSNs to journals before; is there an online search that will find them, like worldcat for OCLC numbers? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Worldcat should provide the ISSNs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. There are a couple of sources with no ISSN still; these are archaeological reports issued at irregular intervals and I don't think any identifier exists for them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries as far as I am concerned. The source reviewer may wish to follow up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. All but one responded to above; I'll ping you when that one is done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67: last point now replied to above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Great stuff Mike. Supporting. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, as ever. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• What's the difference between FN1 and FN27?

  Now merged (one pre-dated my involvement with the article and I didn't notice they were identical). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  The "research records" part should be split into a work title parameter rather than as part of |title=. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  What's the parameter you have in mind? I looked through all the cite web params and didn't see anything that would work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Could do |work=. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  I had tried to find that and was surprised to see that there is no "work=" param in the VE interface. I just tried again and realized after checking the {{cite web}} documentation that the parameter is called "website"; presumably "work" is an alias that would need to be tagged in some way to appear in VE. Anyway, done; and I deleted the publisher parameter (as suggested by its documentation) because it was redundant with the work param filled out. Pinging WhatamIdoing: am I right in thinking that searching for "work" in VE's cite web edit dialog ought to find the website parameter? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  If you're in the "Add more information" section, then yes: any parameter/alias defined in TemplateData on the template's /doc page should be searchable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks. Turns out I already had "Name of the website" included but empty, so searching for "work", which I hadn't known was an alias, found nothing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN74 is missing author, and why include location here but not FN73?

  Author added; I took location out as I understand it's not needed for newspapers but can re-add for both if necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  No location is fine, but the same query now applies to retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  So it does. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Missing full source details for Cunnington

  Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Fn30: does this source have chapters or any other means of identifying a location? (And what do we know about this publisher?)

  It has chapters in Google Books but unfortunately the search that finds the relevant text gives no information about the page it's found on. This is one of those annoying Gbooks that has no pagination. The original publisher was Robert Scott in 1920. I have been assuming that the modern edition is just a photographic reprint as is usually the case for this sort of thing, so it's the reliability of the original publisher that's the issue. I found this page which implies they published travel writing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Suggest expanding the citation to make it clear that this is a reprint. Does a GBooks link go directly to the page of interest? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I tried putting "1920 edition, reprinted" in the "edition" field, but that comes out as "1920 edition, reprinted (ed.)", which isn't really right. I took out the cite template and formatted it manually; if you know of a way to do something like that in the cite book template please let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like "Reprint of 1920" produces a reasonable output for that parameter? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  It does; done. Thank you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Check alphabetization of Sources

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Healy or Healey?

  Healy; fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Piggott has an incorrect publisher name (I'm guessing this error came from Worldcat?)

  The OCLC record linked to says "Cambridge: University Press". The book itself says "Cambridge/At the University Press/1954" on the title page, and "Published by the syndics of the Cambridge University Press" at the top of the verso, with "Printed in Great Britain at the University Press, Cambridge" at the bottom. I thought about making this "Cambridge University Press", but of the three declarations only one says that, so I decided to go with "University Press". Were you likewise thinking it should say "Cambridge University Press"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  OK, changed to "Cambridge University Press". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wedgwood: publisher doesn't match information at that OCLC.

  Not sure what to do about this, except perhaps to remove the OCLC. The edition I have was "especially created in 1997 for Book-of-the-Month Club by arrangement with Deborah Owen Ltd". I couldn't find an exact match so I picked the one that I knew was a book club reprint as the best guess. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  How sure are we that a different reprint will have eg the same pagination? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not. I've removed the OCLC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

For these last two I'll have to wait till later this week when I'm back with my books. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikki: Now replied to everything above, though with at least one question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support on Criterion 1a. I have been following this FAC since it's nomination. I am sorry I have nothing to add but praise.Graham Beards (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2021 [20].

---

UEFA Euro 2020 Final

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC); The Rambling Man

This article is about the final of Euro 2020, the football tournament which took place a few months ago (even though it's 2021!). As someone from England, this was a tough one to write about - it was first major final that the team have reached in my lifetime, and with England holding the lead into the second half it looked for while like it might be our year. It wasn't to be though, the curse of the penalty shootout struck again! Italy were a great team though, and played really well throughout the tournament, so that's the way it goes. As ever, all feedback welcome and I'll be happy to return the favour with a review for anyone else who needs one. Just let me know!  — Amakuru (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

Would be listing every image in the article, and adding my concerns (if any)

Alt text seems fine.

Most of the images are default sized, except the info-box image, which probably needs to be fixed.

All images seem relevant here.

• File:UEFA Euro 2020 Final, Wembley Stadium.jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket. But, do we need a fixed image size in the infobox?
• File:Wembley-Stadion 2013 16x10.jpg — Licencing fine, a retouched image, which was initially "own work" of a user.
• File:UEFA Euro 2020 Trophy.jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket.
• File:Bra-Cos (8).jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket.
• File:Mattarella UEFA Euro 2020 Final.jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket.
• File:UEFA Euro 2020 Final - Sergio Mattarella with Gianni Infantino and Gabriele Gravina.jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by an OTRS ticket.
• File:Shaw - July 2015 (cropped).jpg — Licencing fine, reviewed by a Flickr reviewer.
• File:20150616 - Portugal - Italie - Genève - Leonardo Bonucci (cropped 2).jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user.
• File:ITA-ENG 2021-07-11.svg — Licencing fine, own work of a user.
• File:Gianluigi Donnarumma (31895135436) (cropped).jpg — Licencing fine, I confirmed from the Flickr link.

Great, Pass for image review. The only issue to far too minor to prevent it for passing the review. Would appreciate your comments for this nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh thanks, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:20, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

• "beating final debutants England" - this reads a bit oddly, like they were the last team ever to debut. Maybe change to "first-time finalists"?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "in terms of European Championship titles, it put Italy level with France" - on how many titles?

  Done. (Although we did already say it was their second title further up).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "UEFA announced the tournament would be held" => "UEFA announced that the tournament would be held"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup since the White Horse Final of 1923 (excluding 2001 to 2006, when the stadium was being rebuilt)" - I think "Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup from the White Horse Final of 1923 until it closed in 2000" might be more elegant

  Well that's not quite the same thing, as we're also saying that the FA cup final has been at Wembley since 2007. I have reworded a bit anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "They two sides" => "The two sides"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "behind the 35-match streak of Brazil (1993–1996) and Spain (2007–2009)" => "behind the 35-match streaks of Brazil (1993–1996) and Spain (2007–2009)" (assuming the Spain one was also 35)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the only other final they have reached" => "the only other final they had reached" (then it won't need changing if they reach another)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ciro Immobile and Lorenzo Insigne scored two further attempts" - slightly odd wording, simply saying "two further goals" would be better I think

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• No need to use Immobile's full name again in the next sentence

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The 2020 final was Kuipers' ninth international" - should that say "The 2020 final was Kuipers' ninth international final" (or some better way to word it to avoid the repetition of final)? The current wording makes it sound like it was literally only the ninth international he refereed.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "replacing the 4–2–3–1 formation [...] to..." - either "replacing with" or "changing to", but not "replacing to"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "including one who lost a tooth and another suffered a broken hand" => "including one who lost a tooth and another who suffered a broken hand"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• " a low shot on the half-volley" - link half-volley to somewhere appropriate?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link substitution?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link corner?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "bringing on the attacking player Bukayo Saka in place of Trippier" - need a comma after this to close the clause

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "England free kick in injury time reached Stones" => "An England free kick in injury time reached Stones"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The Football Association interim chairman Peter McCormick OBE" - either "The Football Association's interim chairman Peter McCormick OBE" or "The interim chairman of the Football Association Peter McCormick OBE"

  Done. (I've chopped the OBE too).  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The majority of English players immediately removed the runners-up medals from their necks." => "The majority of English players removed the runners-up medals from their necks immediately after receiving them." - at present it reads like Eder brought the trophy on and the England players at that point took off medals we hadn't been told they were given

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Čeferin also handed the trophy to Italian captain Chiellini" - why "also"? What else did he do?

  I have moved this point earlier in the paragraph and combined it with the medals.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "a parade in Rome the day after the final on 12 July, attended by thousands, the team travelled from the Villa Borghese gardens to the Quirinal Palace." - comma after thousands should probably be a semi-colon

  I've split it into three sentences.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "England players Saka, Sancho and Rashford, were subjected" - no reason for that comma

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Rashford mural has its own article, which could be linked

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Johnson also hoped the Britain and Ireland's proposed bid" => "Johnson also hoped that Britain and Ireland's proposed bid"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• What's a "digital mural"?

  I don't know what it is technically, but that's the term most sources seem to be using. Can you think of a better way to phrase? Not seeing an appropriate link either.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Merge the two tiny paragraphs under "UEFA investigation"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Don't articles on major international finals normally have a section on the reaction/comments from the press in the relevant countries?

  I've added a pargraph on this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's what I got - nice read overall (other than the bad memories, obviously)! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude I think, between us, we've got to all your comments, thanks! Do let us know if there's anything else. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now....I made these tweaks - looks fine on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Edwininlondon

I have made a few minor edits while reading through, ones I thought were not controversial, but feel free to revert if I was wrong. My comments so far:

• only for their last three --> that is two "only for" constructions in consecutive sentences

  Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would expect global audience numbers in the lead

  Added (and to the body too, since it wasn't there)  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would try to add some press analyses of the game in the lead
• London Borough of Brent --> too much detail, just London suffices I think

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• A bit odd to have the article not start with the Background section

  I've moved it to the top. I've also added a boilerplate paragraph which is also found at UEFA Euro 2016, describing the competition and its format.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• caption: I would add London

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• in which Germany defeated the Czech Republic 2–1 after extra time via the golden goal rule --> we are really deviating here from the topic. At the very least the golden goal rule bit is superfluous

  I've chopped the whole scoreline.

• Wembley also hosted every final of the FA Cup since the White Horse Final of 1923, with the exception of those between 2001 and 2006, when the old stadium had closed and the new stadium was being built --> off topic

  Reduced.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Special conditions, including ... --> the verb is quite far away from the subject. Just a matter of style but I'd say: Special conditions applied to the supporters from Italy, including ..

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• once in 1966, as hosts --> that was already mentioned, so I'd drop at least ",as hosts" (and then tweak the next sentence)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Despite the final taking place in London, Italy were the "home team" for administrative purposes. --> this is in the wrong position I think: it breaks the flow of past achievements. There also probably should not be a paragraph break here

  Moved, but whether or not to break the para is somewhat horses for courses, because others object to large paragraphs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• they beat Yugoslavia in 1968 after a replay --> why bring this up again? Just a few lines before it syas "taly won the European Championship in 1968"

  Chopped the whole sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• having previously been eliminated in the semi-finals on two occasions, in 1968 (by Yugoslavia) and in 1996 (by Germany) as hosts --> again feels unnecessarily repetitive, having been described in the 1st paragraph

  Gone.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• first at a major tournament since winning the 1966 FIFA World Cup as hosts --> "as hosts" feels again repetitive

  Already done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• against Greece in 2004 and Portugal in 2016 --> repetition of the years seems unnecessary and with Portugal mentioned twice it gets a bit tricky to follow. Would it not be simpler to say something along the lines of "England also became the third nation of the 21st century to play in a European Championship final as hosts after Portugal in 2004 and France in 2016. Both previous hosts lost their respective finals, Portugal against Greece and France against Portugal"

  Yep, sure. A lot of this guff was in the article before I came to work on it TBH, and I wouldn't have included it myself so happy to prune!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Apart from Italy's aforementioned --> I'm not so sure about that aforementioned: many other things have also been mentioned before, so why use it here?

  Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Something to consider: In the 20th century, three host countries made it to the final and all won (Italy in 1968, ...)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Italy sought to win a major tournament for the first time in 15 years, their last major triumph being victory in the 2006 FIFA World Cup Final at the Olympiastadion in Berlin on penalties against France --> too much detail for my liking, straying off topic, plus it was already mentioned in 1st paragraph

  Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• This tournament success --> A bit curious ... is the success referring to winning the final?

  I've removed this too. It's pointless trivia.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• major tournament --> duplication of tournament in same sentence

  Gone.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments resulted in Italy wins in the group stage of UEFA Euro 1980 --> should there not be some punctuation after wins?

  I have inserted a colon.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• record of ten wins out of ten --> other countries have done this as well, or is it a record for Italy itself?

  I don't think this was meant to be a "record" as in a superlative, more that it's just a "record" of their performance. I've reworded for clarity.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Italy then beat Wales --> repetitive construction after "Italy then beat Switzerland"

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Italy dominated their quarter-final --> according to whom?

  Actually, they didn't. So re-worded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• equalised for Spain to level --> isn't that a bit double up?

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also in Group D --> also repetition

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• qualification rivals Czech Republic --> perhaps overuse of rivals here: they just happened to compete for top spot in qualifying, but not really rivals in the Scotland sense.

  Removed that detail.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• a difficult 1–0 win over Croatia --> according to whom?

  Removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Germany at Wembley in the second round --> elsewhere this is called the round of 16

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• to see England qualify for a first European Championship final and a first final of any major tournament since 1966 --> already mentioned

  Trimmed.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Elizabeth II, UK prime minister Boris Johnson --> why mention Mr Johnson's job but not Elizabeth's?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• wishing them good luck in the final --> what about the Italians? We need something for neutrality

  If you can find anything we've missed, please let us know. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Prematch: I'm missing a subsection describing the experts' expectations, the coaches' views, etc. And even the dreaded bookmakers had probably something to say

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Domestically, he officiated the KNVB Cup final in 2013, 2016, 2018 and 2021, as well as the Johan Cruyff Shield in 2009 and 2012. --> straying off topic here I think

  Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• (one win, one draw and two losses) --> why mention this? If I were Kuijpers I would not be happy be with this as this suggests that I influence who wins or not

  Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• who suffered an Achilles injury in Italy's quarter-final win over Belgium --> was already mentioned so no need for this

  I've trimmed it a bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• to see whether he could participate --> and, could he?

  No. I've reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• I miss the mention of the Italy coach here in the Team selection section

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• wing-backs --> link? (plus I thought that wing backs were a 5-3-2 thing, not a 3-4-3 thing, but I must admit I can't keep up with all these numbers)

  Linked. As for the 5-3-2. yeah that's what I thought too, not that I'm any sort of expert on this. The source does seem to confirm that it's both 3-4-3 and that there were wing-backs, however].

• Two hours before the final, footage --> shouldn't that be "Footage from two hours before the final showed "

  Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• without paying for a ticket --> maybe I'm a bit over picky here but this suggests to me that normally people pay on the spot for a ticket. Perhaps "without having paid" or simply "without a ticket"?

  Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Huge crowds --> not being a native speaker I'm not sure so just checking, but isn't huge a word one would find in the tabloids whereas Large would be more appropriate in an encyclopedia?

  Yes, correct. Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Football Association said it would conduct a full review --> has the rview been completed and published?

  Nope. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• started at 19:45 --> instead of adding local time (19:00 UTC) in the Match section, it is better to do that here, at the first use of time

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• The national anthems of each -->not really part of the Closing ceremony

  Not sure where else it belongs, so I've expanded the scope of the section with an "and anthems" added.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Both sides took the knee before --> Should this not be expanded on and given its own subsection, given the controversy about this prior to the final?

  What controversy was that? According to the Guardian report, both sides took the knee and it passed without incident. Seems a bit WP:UNDUE to make a big thing of it.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Notable spectators --> seems a bit light on Italians, which may have been the case of course

  Indeed. Too many Italians flying into London during COVID was bad optics. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• The match kicked-off --> I'm not so sure about that hyphen

  Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• rainy conditions,[88] in front of 67,173 spectators,[88] --> although helpful for the person who will do a source review, it is a bit intrusive for the average reader: nicer to put the refs at the end I'd say

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Luke Shaw image: is there not one of him in an England kit?

  I don't think so, I can't find one anywhere. I have swapped the image for a much closer crop (without Man Utd badges visible) and more recent (though less good-quality) pic - the original was from 2015 and he doesn't really look the same any more!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• a cross into the penalty area, but his cross --> any way to avoid the duplication of cross?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• the attacking third --> this may be getting a bit too cryptic for the average reader

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• into the England box --> box might be a bit too colloquial. Penalty area is what you use elsewhere

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Italy kicked first in the penalty shoot-out --> was there another toss for this? who won and what did they choose?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• stuttered run-up --> link perhaps?

  I don't think there's a link to that. I've removed it, since it probably isn't necessary and is a bit of a POV comment perhaps.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• sudden death --> link

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Post match: what did the coaches say? Perhaps a few players' views as well

  Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Johnson also hoped that the Britain and Ireland's proposed bid to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup had not been derailed by the scenes of crowd trouble at the final --> this should probably live in the UEFA Investigation section

  I think it's probably okay where it is as it's just his opinion and follows on from the previous sentence. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:07, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Broadcasting and viewership --> anything on who the analysts were in Italy (just to avoid any UK bias)?

  I can't find anything on analysts for RAI or Sky in Italy, but at least we have the commentators in there. It's not really a bias, just an issue of availability of information. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• around 73.7% --> interesting mix of rough estimate ("around") and accuracy (decimal point)

  Well, it's horses for courses, could be "around 73%" or "around 70%" and those are just fine, so no reason why "around 73.7%" isn't fine, but I've just removed "around". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• of the market share --> is that of all people in the country? or all watching TV that night?

  Watching TV. Italy has a population of much more than around 22 million. If it had meant 73.7% of the Italian population watched the match, it would have said that, as it would have been simply unbelievable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• what about global or European wide audience numbers? That really should be mentioned for this type of event

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Edwininlondon could you take another look and see what is outstanding please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

All fine. I Support on prose. Nice work! Edwininlondon (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review from Grapple X

Full disclosure: my father is Italian, this match was perfect, and Chiellini is a genius. Revision reviewed

Shocking! Italy were a really good team, though, no doubt about it...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Italian-language sources like La Gazzetta dello Sport could do with using the language= parameter, and trans-title= when the title has been translated into English. For example ref 122 uses the language field and retains the original title; ref 123 doesn't use it and has translated the original title.

  I've put the original title in the |title= parameter for all of them, and indicated that they are in Italian. They don't all have translated titles, though, I don't speak Italian myself!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Having only one translated when there are a few in Italian isn't ideal; if you'd like I'll add a translation to all of them or we could lose the one we do have, either approach is fine but I wouldn't be in favour of a mix. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ

  @Grapple X: yes, feel free to add them. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 90 states it was "Archived 12 July 2021 at the Wayback Machine", same with ref 93. This seems nonstandard with the other archival links; given that all of the archiving uses the Wayback Machine (archive.org) this is an odd thing to point out only twice.

  I've removed those references to the Wayback Machine. It was just a different template.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a date for ref 73? I don't have Times access but it's unusual to see a newspaper not date their items.
• An ISSN for the Times but not elsewhere?

  I've swapped out that Times source altogether, as it seems the entire article changed frequently on the day of publication, with neither the live nor archived version matching what the text said. So I've reworded a bit with a new source.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• All I can see at present. Sources seem reliable and high-quality, instances of citing a tweet are used only to verify a direct quote which is fine per WP:TWEET. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Grapple X: I think I've looked at all the above points. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good, just one point above. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, I've added those titles using english title casing but you can change that to sentence casing if you wish (which is what it would be in Italian). Let me know if you have a preference but otherwise I would consider this passed on sources. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Grapple X

Going to look at a content review in addition to sourcing.

• "Originally scheduled for 12 July 2020, the match had been postponed along with the rest of the tournament due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe." This isn't mentioned in the article body—in fact the "Background" section has no mention of the postponement. I know this isn't the article for the tournament proper but a mention would be beneficial especially as we have the situation where the 2020 Final is being played in July 2021.
• "lost to France in 2000 via a golden goal" Not all of us lived through the years of tyranny involved with the golden goal, suggest wikilinking it for clarity
• "Three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments resulted in Italy wins". Could simplify this to "Italy won three of their four competitive meetings at major tournaments"
• Luke Shaw image is pretty terrible, let's be honest. Might be able to get a better crop out of File:Luke Shaw, Manchester United v Newcastle United, 11 September 2021 (44) (cropped).jpg, the resolution might not be any better but since he's looking forward and not down it would at least seem less like a Crimewatch still.
• "Chiellini later claimed that he had "cursed" Saka before his penalty miss, by shouting "Kiricocho" as the England player struck the ball"—Without explanation, this is some fairly inside-baseball stuff; the source explains what "Kiricocho" means/represents and we should really follow suit, even just briefly. Something like "Chiellini later claimed that he had "cursed" Saka before his penalty miss, by shouting "Kiricocho"—a common superstitious term among footballers—as the England player struck the ball" or better words to that effect.
• There's mention that RAI are the state broadcaster for Italy, for context it might be worth adding the same for the BBC.
• All I have for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Grapple X: many thanks for the review. I think I've looked at all your points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, that looks good to me--the added depth re: postponement especially, article now functions as a standalone much better. Happy to support in light of the improvements. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: we're two days from the mystery "unwritten" three-week threshold here and have all the pre-requisites. Can you let us know if there's anything more we need to do to ensure a timely promotion please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

There is not any rule, written or otherwise, regarding three weeks or three supports. Other than three supports being the minimum usually required for it to be considered that a consensus to promote has been reached after any length of time. It is unusual for a nomination with only three reviews to be promoted after only three weeks, but as I will not be promoting any nominations by WikiCup contestants until next month I haven't been through this in detail and it is possible that it is one of those unusual exceptions. The standard answer to the FAQ "What can I do to get my nomination speedily promoted/" is "Get further detailed scrutiny of it by further reviewers". This applies pretty much however many reviews/supports it already has.

On a separate but related point, note that for my current nom Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747) I asked for further reviews on the WikiCup talk page even though it already had three supports and has now been open for more than three weeks. (You were kind enough to provide one of them, for which thank you.) I did this because I considered there was no chance of it being prompted before the end of the month with only three supports.

I hope that this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It does Gog, of course. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: so this one now has four content supports and the usual source and image reviews thanks to Grapple's recent support. @Ian Rose, is there any chance this might be promotable before the end of the WikiCup on Sunday? Do we need to do anything further in order to make that happen? I'm aware it's a fairly recent nomination, but if you don't ask you don't get! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hi TRM, Amakuru, forgive me if I missed something but I couldn't see the timings for the subs and cards in the match report cited... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Ian Rose: thanks for the query. The timings are given in the Guardian minute-by-minute report, so I've just added that as an explicit extra source above the two team lists. Hopefully that satisfies your concern. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Hmm, maybe I'm suffering temporary blindness but I can only see the timings for the subs, not the cards (understand that I'm not incredibly fussed about seeing times for the cards, only that if we present timings that they be properly cited)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Ian Rose: ah, it's not mentioned in the panel on the left, but all of the cards are mentioned in the minute-by-minute updates, I checked them this morning. For example, for Nicola Barella's yellow card on 47 minutes, the source has an update on page 4 saying: "47 min: Kane powers down the left and is clipped on the heel by Barella, who becomes the first name in the referee’s notebook tonight.". Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    Ah-ha... Not sure the uninitiated would immediately equate "first name in the referee’s notebook" with a yellow card -- I suppose they'd report a red card as "given his marching orders..."? Anyway I'll pay it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

    True enough, it's certainly a rather obscure jargony phrase! The Guardian minute-by-minutes are always a bit more of a colloquial and chatty tone than a regular report would be, although I'd hazard that anyone reasonably familiar with football would be able to connect those two statements together... as for red card, yes "given his marching orders" would cover it or even "ordered to have an early bath"  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 October 2021 [21].

---

Milorad Ekmečić

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

A bit of a change of pace for me. Ekmečić was a Yugoslav and Bosnian Serb historian with a previously distinguished (if slightly controversial) academic career who "went national" during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, and was one of a group of prominent Yugoslav historians who eschewed the standards of international scholarship and concentrated exclusively on sectarian myths during the period of conflict in the former Yugoslavia, resulting in the production of what has been described by several scholars of the period as "pseudohistory". He was also an advisor to Radovan Karadžić (later convicted as a war criminal) during the Bosnian War, and a co-founder of Karadžić's party in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the radical nationalist Serb Democratic Party. The article went through GAN and Milhist A-Class review last year. Have at it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Milorad_Ekmečić.jpg is missing a fair-use tag, and the rationale should be expanded. Is the copyright holder known? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. Done, and no. It may be Vreme, but equally it could have just been lifted from an academic page of a uni or academy - the website doesn't make a claim about the photo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I've swapped the tag for a different one. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• There is far too much focus on negative aspects of his career.
• There is almost zero text regarding why his body of work matters and what he achieved as a scholar during his research, which led to several significant national awards. How can we have a FA without anything of

note about "30 good years" of his career?

• Highly reliable "Vreme" magazine calls Ekmecic "notable representative of Serbian critical school". [22]
• Street is named after him, it's not "proposed". Please do your research.
• There is a 272 pages book titled "Pečat Milorada Ekmečića" (Seal/imprint of Milorad Ekmečić) which covers

his life and work in great details. It is no used nor even mentioned here.

• Work by Christian Axboe Nielsen can not be used to give a general overiw of his work. She is more focused on politics in her work and is not a scholar of note. Ekmecic has more citations and greater bibliography. That aside, we need far better and stronger sources in order to present her view in Wiki voice.
• Ekmečić was buried at the Alley of Distinguished Citizen
• Many of his interesting views about history and geopolitics are not reprsented. In hist interview for Pečat Ekmečić, a historian and uni. professor for 40 years makes some great observations, claims and notes about history. For example - he claims that there is very little chance for WWIII and explains why. That is just an example, the point is - being adviser for Karadžić is important but his scholary work is far more important.
• Claiming that he produces "pseudohistory" lacks definitive reliable sources, sorry.
• According to the Serbian historian Olivera Milosavljević, Ekmečić believed that the Serbian nation "must unite to a higher degree than it is now. The rest of Yugoslavia, which would add Serbian parts from Croatia, as a separate body, is one of the closest solutions" Could you provide the quote in Serbian?
• Check more on his scholary work here.
• BU professor writes about his body of works and gives a possitve assesement here.
• All in all, very far from Wikipedia's best work and neutral point of view. MareBG (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild

I reviewed this at ACR, so I will recuse to review it again, with my expectations appropriately raised. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

G'day @FAC coordinators: can I withdraw this please? I wasn't aware of the bio mentioned above (I'm not sure of its quality, and the reliability of the author and publisher, but not having even examined it isn't good enough for FA). I don't accept quite a few of the above comments by MareBG are accurate, but that is moot for the moment, because it will take me too long to obtain a copy of the bio, and as my ability to read Cyrillic is woeful, once I've got the book it will take quite some time to work through it. I'll also have to do some searching for reviews etc of the book to help determine its quality so I know what sort of content I can use it for. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. For the avoidance of doubt, a two week pause will not apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2021 [23].

---

Red (Taylor Swift album)

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

With the recording of this album, America's Sweetheart experimented and blurred the line between country and pop, producing what is widely considered one of the best albums of the 2010s; the next album in her chronology turned her into a fully-fledged pop machine. While I think it's ready for the bronze star, I'm open to any suggestions concerning possible improvements so that the article could reach its full FA potential. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Image and media review (pass)

Apologies in advance as I will likely only have time to do an image and media review. My comments are below:

Addressed comments

File:Taylor Swift - Red.png: The WP:FUR is completed and the image has appropriate WP:ALT text and a clear purpose in the article. File:Taylor Swift Speak Now Tour 2011 4.jpg: I would recommend that you add WP:ALT text for this image. Good catch, added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC) File:Joni Mitchell 1983.jpg: The source link for this image goes to a HTTP 404 error message. You could replace it with an archived version if this image is no longer up for whatever reason. Good catch. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Everything with File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114363291).jpg and File:Taylor Swift 2013 RED tour (8588016225).jpg looks good to me, but I do wonder if two Swift images in the "Release and promotion" section are entirely necessary, especially since one is already used in the "Recording and production" section and the album cover technically counts as one. It just feels rather repetitive to me. I personally think the tour one is rather low-quality and does not particularly add much to this article. The GMA one is definitely important. I do like the RED tour image there personally speaking and think the quality isn't a big factor at the thumbnail size, but am not married to it and open to removal. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC) Thank you for the response. I will leave this up to other editors. I do not really see the need for a second picture of Swift in the same section, and I do not think the tour image in particular adds anything to the reader's understanding. However, this could just be a matter of personal preference so it would likely be best to see how other reviewers view this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC) I will look at the audio samples tomorrow if that is okay with you. I participated in the peer review for this article and while my questions and comments about the audio samples were answered there, I still want to make sure that I thoroughly review them again. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC) @Aoba47: All good! Take your time, I greatly appreciate you doing the media review as the source and media reviews are definitely the trickier ones to get done haha. It is very greatly appreciated; I didn't even think you'd still be around to do any of this haha. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC) I am just glad that I can help. I know this is not too much, but I just wanted to try and contribute something. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC) The audio samples all have clear WP:FUR and roles in the article. I have some prose concerns for File:IKnewYouWereTrouble.ogg's caption. It reads rather awkwardly to me, particularly since there's so much information put into a single sentence. This phrasing, Swift's most radical sonic innovation on the album, seems off to me. I get what you mean (i.e. this was the biggest change for her), but it seems awkwardly phrased. I do not think "innovation" really works here, but maybe it's because I find that word so over-used to the point that it has become meaningless. @Aoba47: How would you recommend this be reworded? It matches the article prose. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC) I would recommend brainstorming a few idea. I'd at least change the innovation part as I find that to be awkwardly worded and the part of the caption that I kept coming back to with uncertainty. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC) @Aoba47: How about "sonic development" or "most significant change on..."? Admittedly, I think "innovation" fits rather well haha. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC) I personally do not think "innovation" works in this context. However, in my opinion, that word has been over-used. The "most significant change on..." idea seems more direct and transparent to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC) @Aoba47: Actioned with a slight twist: "Regarded by critics as Swift's most significant sonic change on the album,...". I can take out "sonic", I just felt it possibly fits a bit better to answer the inevitable "what type of change?" question that readers/editors could hit with. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC) For File:Taylor Swift - All Too Well sample.ogg's caption, I would clarify who views this song as the album's emotional centerpiece. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC) The caption for File:BeginAgain.ogg looks good. The prose is a tad wordy. You could slightly condense about finding hope after having endured emotional distress to about finding hope after enduring emotional distress, but otherwise, it is good and does a good job defending its use in the article. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC) This should be the end of my image/media review. Everything with the audio samples themselves looks good, and I just have some prose issues with the captions. Once these points have been addressed, I will pass this review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience with this review. This FAC passes my image and media review. Best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Aoba47! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from DMT

I've issued now relevant comments on the peer review and I am satisfied it meets FA criteria. DMT Biscuit (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, DMT Biscuit! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Placeholder for now. I'm not a Swiftie (that is how you spell her fanbase, right?) and I will try not to screw this up. Ping me if I don't leave comments by Sunday! Pamzeis (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Pinging per your request above. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

OK, here we go. Alert me if I screw something up

• There seem to be a few duplinks (to name a few, Ed Sheeran, Billboard (magazine))

  I wish the "highlight duplicates" script would ignore the lead and citations; makes it almost impossible to use. That said, I think I've squashed most of the ones I could see. From what I understand/remember, links in the lead should be repeated once in the body. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think you missed one so I unlinked it

• pop and rock with — MOS:SERIAL comma after "pop"?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• her third studio album Speak Now in October — commas around "Speak Now"?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• and didn’t have → and did not have

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• evident on its predecessor Fearless — comma after predecessor?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Speak Now was the fastest-selling digital album by a female artist, with 278,000 downloads in a week, earning Swift an entry in the 2010 Guinness World Records. At the 54th Grammy Awards in 2012, the album was nominated for Best Country Album, and its single "Mean" won Best Country Song and Best Country Solo Performance. — I'm not really sure what purpose this bit serves

  Giving background on the success of the previous album? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• and Dann Huff. Huff — repetition of "Huff"

  How would you recommend avoiding this? Saying "He" would cause confusion between Chapman and Huff. It appears to be a case where it is unavoidable to repeat or the reader (and editors) would be left confused. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• music"."Treacherous" was — missing space?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• inspired Swift. Swift engaged — repetition of "Swift"

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• of Snow Patrol, saying, "they — what is Snow Patrol?

  Clarified. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Swift's previous albums. Swift called the album's diverse musical styles a "metaphor for how messy a real breakup is" and described it as her "only true breakup album". Critics were divided about the genre that best describes the album. J. English wrote for NPR the album's influences range from Swift's well-known country sound to new genres such as dance-pop, dubstep, and Britrock. Jon Dolan's album review for Rolling Stone appeared in their column for country music while AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine called it a straightforward pop album that — the word "album(s)" is mentioned, by my count, seven times in those five sentences. Suggest replacing some with "it" or something like that

  Replaced a couple of those. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Others such as "I Almost Do" — comma after "Others"?

  Added. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• summed up the album's theme as — is "theme" meant to be plural?

  Based on the source, that appears to be correct as is. The source says that it is an album of disappearances. It then elaborates on what that means, as does this article. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• disappearances, from lost romance to — I might just be misunderstanding things here but did Nelson think disappearances were part of the themes as it seems unclear to me

  Reading through the source, it states the following: Red is an album of disappearances, of things that have gone or are just about to go missing—lost relationships, old sounds, previous Taylor Swifts, each photographed just as they’re receding out of frame. Even on the album cover, Swift is partially disappeared, her downcast eyes swallowed by a lip of shadow falling from a wide-brimmed hat. It’s her somewhat obvious way of referencing the front cover of Joni Mitchell’s 1971 album Blue, where a photograph of Mitchell’s face is submerged in a blue-black lake of shadow.

  Disappearances is the theme of the album, in his view. The talk of lost relationships etc. are the types of disappearance he identifies. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• In note 2, can we link "America's Sweetheart" to Honorific nicknames in popular music?

  Done. Good idea. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• recognizing her coming-of-age in — I don't think the hyphens are needed

  Hyphens removed and wikilink updated to not use the redirect.

• #Songs seems a tad long. Can we split it up into sub-headings?

  What would you suggest for subheads? I don't see anything particularly obvious as multiple songs are discussed per paragraph, so we can't split by song. --

• third track "Treacherous" begins with — commas around "'Treacherous'"?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• according to critic Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone; "No other — I don't really think a semi-colon works here...

  Replaced with a comma, I think that that works now? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• it lyrics are about → its lyrics are about

  Good typo catch. Corrected. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• The next track "Sad Beautiful Tragic" is a melancholic — commas around "'Sad Beautiful Tragic'"?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• album's final track "Begin Again" is a — commas around "'Begin Again'"?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• the album's lead single "We Are Never — comma after "single"?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• was a big hit on pop — can "hit" be better defined here?

  Wikilinked to hit song. Does that suffice? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• released as singles;"The Last Time" had — missing space

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• tours by a country artist — shouldn't "tours" be singular?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• When she’s really on → When she's really on

  @Pamzeis: I don't understand what you want changed here? This is the identical line repeated in both before & after? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have been so subtle; I wanted the curly apostrophe changed to a straight one.

• of her next album 1989 (2014) — comma after "album"?

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Red or Speak Now should be italicised in citations

  I think I've got them all now. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I have been busy due to poor time management. Ping me when these are resolved. Pamzeis (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• I support this nomination for promotion—best of luck! On an unrelated note, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review, Pamzeis! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Jim

This isn't a topic where I normally review, so I can only assume that the content is typical for popular music FAs, it certainly looks comprehensive, and I couldn't really see any significant grammatical issues. Some comments

• "red" emotions that resulted from the unhealthy romance she experienced during the album's conception. Its songs discuss the complex and conflicting emotions ensued from lost romance.—repeats of Emotions and romance could perhaps be avoided

  @Jimfbleak: I missed the first bullet, my apologies. Given the topic matter, I am not sure that it can really be changed up too much. How about the second sentence end with "ensued from a lost romantic relationship."? That just seems unnecessarily wordy though...I'm open to any suggestions. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  @TheSandDoctor: I’d simply word it: “The album's title refers to Swift's tumultuous, “red”, emotions she felt in her relationship during the album's conception; in its songs she discusses complex and conflicting feelings from fading romance.” - which handles multiple issues with those lines. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Coffee: Done. Good suggestion! cc @Jimfbleak: --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• It additionally includes several songs Swift wrote and expected to include on the 2012 album.—Not sure additionally is necessary, and had expected might be better

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• hoping to "learn from them"* and her "comfort zone". Not sure why these standard phrases merit apostrophes

  Removed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• American singer and actor Lauren Alaina cited Red as an album that changed her life—not sure why this particular piece of hyperbole merits a mention, unless it really did change her life, in which case we need to be told how

  Read the source and she seemed to say that about a lot of artists without citing how. Removed. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• We don't normally accept Amazon as a ref, and in fact a script I use has shaded it as a generally unreliable source, why do you consider it acceptable here?

  @Jimfbleak: I have that script as well, but 1989 (Taylor Swift album) was promoted with them and uses them in the same context (citing that they were released in that country with that version, not for other fact checks or anything controversial). The entire release history sections would most likely have to go without Amazon in both of them. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• the last two refs have Chinese titles, don't we normally use trans-title to provide the English equivalent?

  Resolved. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Again with the last two refs, one has (in Chinese) the other doesn't.'

  Resolved. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• SandDoctor, thanks. You don't seem to have addressed the first of my bullet points above, but that seems easy to fix, so I'll now Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Jimfbleak! I've replied above to that point, which I missed beforehand. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Sources are high quality. I consider the use of Amazon acceptable for release dates, as opposed to buyer feedback.
• No formatting issues.
• No dead links.
• Spot checks: 69, 70, 112, 150, 151, 239, 257, 255, 256 - all okay (but see below)
• 255, 256: Archive goes to a CAPTCHA. Replace the useless archive.org archive links with the archive.today ones.

  Done. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Hawkeye7! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

• Looks good to me. Happy to offer my support. – zmbro _(talk) 19:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review, Zmbro! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from SatDis

• I supported this article during a peer review in July 2021. I will give it another read before offering my support again. SatDis (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • SatDis, are there any other comments you'd like to make? (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm really happy to support the nomination based on my comments during the peer review. Apologies for the delay, and good luck! SatDis (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Not a full review, but can anything be done to render the reception section into a more narrative form? The division into paragraphs by topic seems fine, but within the paragraphs there is a lot of "A said B". In the third paragraph, for example, we get "Jonathan Keefe wrote ... Michael Gallucci found ... Robert Christgau viewed ... James Lachno found ... Mesfin Fekadu felt ..." Once the topic statement for the paragraph is given, we just get a sequence of examples. In other words, rather than a statement in the article's voice which is illuminated by quotes, we get the quotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: That is never my strong suit apparently, which is why I always go through GOCE first. I've changed the wording up a bit. Does that look any better? I am open to suggestions. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 02:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

That helps a bit; I know it's hard to get these sections to flow. Looking through some of the sources, how do you get "appreciated Swift's efforts to expand her sonic territory" out of Christgau's review? And I see a few more things in the review sources that look like they might be usefully mentioned. From Gallucci, for example, the "blah duets" (could be contrasted with Fekadu's positive comments), use of Auto-Tune, and comments about her divergence away from a country sound. From Keefe, again the departure from country, the specifics about what is wrong with the production, a "real sense of risk" which goes with Gallucci's comments about it being bold (you phrase this as "ambitious" which is fine), the positive comments about the production of some songs. From Fekadu, a comment that "stepping out of her comfort zone doesn't always work" which ties to the risk comments. From Lachno, positive comments about the duets, and it's clear that unlike most of the other reviewers Lachno is not a fan of her earlier albums; and he also disagrees with the "risk" line of comment, saying "too often, Swift's nerve fails her as she returns to her tried and tested formula". And that's just looking at the sources in that paragraph; I didn't check the sources from the first two paragraphs. I just had a quick look at the NYT review; you have a single point cited to that review, but it's a long review -- are you sure you've extracted all the useful information from it?

I think more work is needed on disassembling what the reviewers are saying, and putting it back together in prose that tells more than it quotes. An example is here, where I and another editor tried to do this. I usually find it's necessary to pull the reviews apart into points they make, so I can see what can be usefully combined into paragraphs. I think you've done some of that here, but there is more source material that could be used, and the more commonality you can find across the points made in the reviews the easier it is to structure the prose to reflect the themes of the reviews rather than just taking quotes from them.

I'm also a bit doubtful about which reviews you've used -- this is a small list of cited reviewers for one of the most prominent albums of that year. The London Times? Chicago Herald Tribune? And I'm not expert on the specialist music sources, but are you sure you have seen all the important ones? There must have been hundreds of reviews; how did you pick these? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: re the "appreciated" bit, I have no idea as I didn't add it but agree. Reworked to be better based on the source.

Those are some good tips & I will endeavor to include them over the next few days. I will keep you updated and let you know if I have any questions. I take it that you see this section expanding considerably as well? Its current length appears in line with other FAs.

I didn't write this section, so had really no part in what reviews were included. I think that there is a representative amount here selected, but could happily find more. Are there any in particular you either object to or would suggest adding? That ("all the important ones") isn't really a question that can be answered as it is entirely subjective to that individual editor/reader. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

It could well end up being longer, but I'm not insisting on that -- for example, if you end up summarizing opinions across multiple reviews and not using as many quotes, it might be about the same length. A reception section ought to reflect the sum of the critical commentary about the album, so I don't think one can say how long it needs to be without reading the reviews. I'll keep an eye on the article and this FAC; let me know when you want me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Mike Christie It looks like this FAC is mostly wrapped up except your comments. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not convinced this is as good as it could be, but I can’t in good conscience oppose without spending more time looking through the reviews and figuring out what more could be done. The changes made since my comment are an improvement, but I can’t support either as I haven’t read through the whole article. I don’t expect to have time to revisit, either, so I think it’s OK to promote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyvio check

Earwig is clean (t · c) buidhe 14:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 16:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 November 2021 [24].

---

Hoodoo Mountain

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. I am nominating this for FA because it's a comprehensive account of this relatively obscure volcano. Hoodoo Mountain is one of the four volcanoes comprising the Stikine Subprovince which forms part of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province in northwestern North America. Volcanoguy 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Hoodoo_Mountain_topographic_map.jpg: when was this first published?
  • Don't know. Volcanoguy 01:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay. The given source is quite recent, so doesn't confirm the validity of the tag. Is there another source that does? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Nikkimaria and Volcanoguy:Per this it seems like it was indeed published by Kerr 1948. This does not display the map but it implies that it was on a separate sheet. This does display the map (in the zip file, sheet 311a) and it also specifies that this licence applies, which is OK for Wikipedia. We could upload that to Wikipedia if there are derivative work concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I've uploaded a cropped version of sheet 311a to replace the map I found in the 2014 source. Volcanoguy 04:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• File:Rift_xsection.png: what's the source of the information presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Added source. Volcanoguy 05:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria is this a pass for the image review? (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

  File:Hoodoo_Mountain_topo.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  A US tag for what? It's a Canadian work, not American. Volcanoguy 18:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  In order to be hosted on Commons, images must be free in both their country of origin and the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Says whom? The timing of copyright expiration varies per country. See list of countries' copyright lengths. Volcanoguy 18:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  See commons:Commons:Project_scope#Must_be_freely_licensed_or_public_domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I've removed the map. Volcanoguy 19:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Never mind; I see Buidhe added the PD-URAA template for this file. I figured it was copyright issue. Volcanoguy 20:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria is this solution satisfactory? (t · c) buidhe 22:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Support by Eewilson

Support. I no longer Oppose moving this article to FA. All issues I have brought up have been resolved by the nominator. See my comments at the bottom of this section. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

OLD - This article is too technical for the average reader to understand. The nominator has admitted such and has refused to simplify even the Lead. I do not have faith that those and related changes will be addressed and am stopping my review here (see the end of my comments) with an Oppose. Eewilson (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

LOL! Don't be a hypocrite. I could say the same for your FAC. It uses a lot of terms I'm not even familiar with. Volcanoguy 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments welcomed FAC here or on the article Talk page. Eewilson (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Hi! It looks like this had a good GA pass recently, so hopefully this review won't take too long. I'll see what I can find that has been missed.

• Spell out units on first use in lead and first use in prose (using abbr=off in the Convert template).
  • 25 km (16 mi) in lead
  • 1,850 m (6,070 ft) in lead
  • 30 km (19 mi) in Biogeography
  • 900 m (3,000 ft) in Biogeography
  • 500 mm (20 in) in Climate
  • 15 cm (5.9 in) in Subfeatures
  • 1,008,109 kg (2,222,500 lb) in Mining
  • 4,348,814 g (153,399.9 oz) in Mining
• The final three images have full sentence captions and should end with a period (full stop).
  • Added the periods but I don't see the need to spell out units. Also spelling out certain units in the article and leaving others how they are isn't very consistent. Volcanoguy 01:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
    • See MOS:UNITNAMES (ital mine): "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use (e.g. Up to 15 kilograms of filler is used for a batch of 250 kg)." Eewilson (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay but most of those units are used several times in the article. What if I spell out all units? Volcanoguy 11:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
        • What I read from that MOS is that you probably should do that if there are only a few, like in this article. So that should work fine. Thanks for being open to it. Eewilson (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I have spelled out all units throughout the article. Volcanoguy 15:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Convert template's abbr parameter default is, counterintuitively, to spell out the input unit but not the output unit in parentheses. In order to spell out both, you have to use abbr=off. I'd be glad to make that change. You have done a tremendous amount of work on this article this year, and I agree with your GA reviewer's comments, but please bear with my nitpickiness. Eewilson (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Done. Volcanoguy 22:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not finished. Just stopping for now. Eewilson (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC

• Lead: reviewing for simplification of lead prose (accessible to as broad an audience as possible per MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEAD in general). As a non-geologist, I am finding it necessary to click on many of the Wikilinks in the Lead which could send the reader away from the article. Here are some suggestions.
  • Not sure "Canada–United States border" needs a Wikilink.
    • I've changed this to "Alaska–British Columbia border". Volcanoguy 04:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Instead of linking "icefield," how about just putting "area of interconnected glaciers" in the Lead?
    • "Icefield" is a pretty general term for a large area of glacial ice. Volcanoguy 04:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "The volcano was constructed during six stages beginning about 85,000 years ago..." Could "stages" be replaced with something like "stratographic stages"? The simple word "stages" makes the reader question why it's linked, then sending them to a surprise location (MOS:EASTEREGG).
    • I've unlinked "stages" because I don't think it's necessary. Also it may have been linking to the wrong article. Volcanoguy 03:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "...each evolving from eruptions of phonolitic or trachytic magma." Could this be reworded for clarity so the reader can understand that "phonolitic" and "trachytic" mean types of rock? I suggest "...each evolving from magma eruptions of phonolite and trachyte rock." That way, the reader knows we are talking about rock and would not have to click into the individual articles to understand what kind of rock unless they wish. As it is, with the adjectives, they would have to have some background in geology.
    • Reworded. Volcanoguy 05:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Most of these eruptions were effusive in nature and deposited the lava flows..." Perhaps "Most of these eruptions consisted of a steady flow of lava..." saving the term "effusive" for later in the article and directly linking "lava" to Lava.
    • Reworded. Volcanoguy 05:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "However, some pyroclastic rocks are also present, indicating at least one period of explosive activity." to "At least one period of explosive activity occurred indicated by the presence of pyroclastic rocks [or rock]."
    • Done. Volcanoguy 04:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Can the following be trimmed and combined into one sentence, removing the term "seismicity", perhaps saving it for later? Most of us understand that "seismic activity" means the ground is moving somewhere, but "seismicity" is more technical. Current text: "No historical eruptions are known at Hoodoo Mountain but periods of seismicity have been recorded there since at least the mid-1980s. The presence of seismic activity indicates that Hoodoo Mountain still poses potential hazards to the surrounding region and that future eruptions are possible." Perhaps instead write: "Although no historical eruptions are known at Hoodoo Mountain, there have been periods of seismic activity since at least the mid-1980s, indicating possible future eruptions and volcanic hazards."
    • Done. Volcanoguy 04:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Bottom line with the lead is it's a struggle for a lay-reader to get through paragraphs one and two, but paragraph three is a breeze and still gives good information. Perhaps the first two can be simplified with some of the suggestions I've made and and likely others you can think of. That's all for now. Eewilson (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this but geology isn't for everyone. The simplicity of Wikipedia is one of the reasons why I have been thinking about retiring as it's "unfriendly" those who write about technical subjects. With that said I'm not making any major changes to this article. It seems as if Simple English Wikipedia has been forgotten about. Volcanoguy 01:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That's unfortunate as this could be a great article given a bit of attention in this area. This article may qualify for Template:Technical. Wikipedia is not a textbook repository nor is it a technical manual. Articles do need to be understandable to the average reader, and the Lead needs to be a step down from that. I Oppose this becoming a Featured Article. Eewilson (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

By your logic your FAC may also qualify for Template:Technical. If you take a look at other FA volcano articles you'll see they all pretty much use geological terms non-geologists aren't familiar with. Its a geologic article and therefore uses geological terms. That's pretty ordinary. Volcanoguy 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Technical terms are expected to be kept for later in the article. The Lead needs to be in layman's terms followed by an easing-in to technical terms, with short explanations of their meaning. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Eewilson (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't find the "stages" and "icefield" a problem - the layman's understanding of the term is good enough for the former, and your explanation of "icefield" is too long and would probably make experts scratch their head. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

In the lead, I'm trying to avoid the reader having to struggle past technical terms, including clicking on them. I have no attachment to my suggestions, and if certain ones won't work, then of course there could be alternatives. The idea is not to blow the reader away. I think some lead cleanup in this area could do some good, then easing into other prose so as not to be obscure to the average reader. It's not an easy thing to do, and I am willing to keep going. The problem is that Volcanoguy said they were not making any major changes to the article. I understand that, nor would I want to make them if it were in the same situation. It doesn't seem realistic, though, not to expect changes to have to be made in order to take a good article to great. So with Volcanoguy's absolute statement, it seemed no progress could be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus, what do you suggest? Eewilson (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The solution I use for jargon is to add footnotes, like on Antofalla. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson: I'm sorry for my earlier comments. I thought you meant technical terms shouldn't be used in the article at all (which is nearly impossible) but it seems you were just referring to the lead. After thinking about it for a bit I'm gonna try and fix the problems you have brought up. Lots of them are actually quite simple to improve. Volcanoguy 03:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: Thank you for that. Ping me here when you get it changed. This is a very interesting article and subject. I had no idea there were so many volcanos in Canada, and your dedication to them does us all a great service. Wikipedia can seem like a thankless place, especially during reviews when it seems like all things are criticisms. Eewilson (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson: I've gone through all the points you have brought up. Volcanoguy 06:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks great. I think the lead is welcoming and will make the average reader want to go further now. I had already read the rest of the prose and found no issues with it, nor did I see any POV. I read and skimmed it just now and haven't changed my opinion on that. Thank you for your willingness to step back and take a look at the suggestions I made. I Support based on my review of technical, Lead, prose, and POV. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Eewilson: Thanks! Since you seem to have an interest in this subject, I can notify you of more FACs if you like. Volcanoguy 16:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be great. Thanks! Eewilson (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Nearly three weeks in and this nomination has garnered only one general support. Unless considerable further progress is made towards a consensus to support over the next three or four days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll try to get a more thorough review, but it may take a few days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Tomorrow I'll do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I've notified some users to see if they can comment. Volcanoguy 19:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

It may take a couple days for them to be able to take a look through the article. I hope that's not a problem GTM. Volcanoguy 05:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Support

What an interesting volcano! This is a very informative article, even for an advanced layperson. My only suggestion is to replace "phonolite and trachyte" in the lede with "highly silicic and alkaline igneous rock", but only in the lede. I can never remember the TAS diagram, and I imagine most other readers don't either. — hike395 (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Hike! Wouldn't "highly silicic and alkaline igneous rock" a bit vague since there are several types of highly silicic and alkaline igneous rocks not found at Hoodoo Mountain? Volcanoguy 09:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's true, but not specific, right? I think that true but unspecific statements are fine in the lede, because people can always find more details in the main body of the article, i.e., exactly what kind of silicic and alkaline extrusive igneous rock is found there. — hike395 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Except "silicic" and "alkaline" are not used in the main body of the article. "Peralkaline" is mentioned in the geology section, although that isn't the same as "alkaline". Many people probably don't know what those words mean and the lede is supposed to be as simple as possible. Most people probably aren't familiar with the TAS diagram anyway so I don't see why that's relevant. Volcanoguy 20:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by GeoWriter

Overall, I think this is a well-written and well-sourced article. Here are my detailed comments:

Geography

Biogeography

"Forests grow on the lower slopes of Hoodoo Mountain except for its northeastern flank where rock and ice are dominant. Much of this forest cover lies at elevations below 900 metres (3,000 feet)."

I suggest these two sentences should be moved/merged into the preceding paragraph which mentions the forests, rock, ice and valley bottoms.

I've reworded to "Forests of this ecosection grow on the lower slopes of Hoodoo Mountain..." Volcanoguy 02:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Climate

"Hoodoo Mountain has a maritime glacial climate".

Is “maritime glacial climate” a recognized valid climate type? Or is it actually a maritime climate but glaciers also happen to be in the region (as a coincidence)?

The latter. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Geology

Background

"Other volcanic formations, notably subglacial volcanoes, take their shape from ...". A subglacial volcano is a landform not a formation.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the relationship/hierarchy of Stikine subprovince and Iskut volcanic field?

I'm not sure what you mean. They're two different things. Volcanoguy 01:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I withdraw my question because it should instead be discussed at the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province and/or Iskut volcanic field articles. GeoWriter (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Iskut Volcanic Field has 8 centres (Hoodoo Mountain being one of those centres), but it seems that of these 8 centres, only Hoodoo Mountain is a NCVP centre? Are the other 7 centres of Iskut not regarded as NCVP centres?

Clarified. The entire field is part of the NCVP. Volcanoguy 01:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Stikine subprovince "consists of three other volcanic centres" should be changed to "includes three other volcanic centres" or "has three other volcanic centres".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to clarify the meaning of "volcanic centre" compared to "volcanic field".

I've removed "volcanic centre" from the same paragraph to avoid confusion. Volcanoguy 01:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Structure

"It has a basal diameter of around 6 kilometres (3.7 miles), a maximum volume of 17.3 cubic kilometres (4.2 cubic miles)" – what is the significance of "maximum"? Why not only "volume"?

Deleted "maximum". Volcanoguy 23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"Hoodoos, needle-like rock formations after which the volcano is named" – I suggest that "spire" or "pillar" would be better than "needle-like".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"The lower set of cliffs delimit the base of the volcano except for its southeastern margin where they have been partially overrun by younger lava flows. They are 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) high and form a broad bench" – I think the "they" in "They are 100 to 200 metres ..." should be clarified – I think this refers to the cliffs not the younger lava flows?

Clarified. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"the glassy chemical composition of the lava" – glassy is not a chemical composition - "glassy chemical composition" should be changed to "glassy texture".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"The Southwest Flow is a large composite lava flow" - "composite lava flow” should be defined.

Removed "composite". Volcanoguy 01:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Volcanic history

"Some tephra layers in northern British Columbia may have been deposited by Hoodoo Mountain." Is this summarising the later paragraph about tephra at Dease Lake, Finlay River and Bob Quinn Lake? Without mentioning those locations in this summary paragraph, it reads oddly because Hoodoo Mountain is itself in northern British Columbia. I think it could be improved by adding a mention of how far away (in kilometres) from Hoodoo Mountain this tephra may have reached.

Yes I agree. Clarified. Volcanoguy 03:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Hoodoo has also been designated as a subglacial volcano due to much of the mountain having formed subglacially in the last 100,000 years." Did anything geologically or volcanically significant happen 100,000 to 85,000 years ago? If not, why mention 100,000 years? Elsewhere in the text, 85,000 years is mentioned: "The first eruptive period 85,000 years ago" and "The primary rock types comprising the volcano are phonolite and trachyte, which were deposited during six periods of eruptive activity beginning about 85,000 years ago".

Fixed. Volcanoguy 01:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Eruptive periods

Image of eruptive periods (File:Hoodoo Mountain eruptive periods.png): I suggest that ice is changed from blue (the traditional colour of liquid water in diagrams) to white (the traditional colour of ice in diagrams). Hoodoo Mountain is, after all, a subglacial volcano not submarine volcano.

Done, although it may take a while for the image to display white instead of blue. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"These volcanic deposits are mainly exposed on Hoodoo's southwestern and northwestern flanks": "Hoodoo’s" is too informal. I suggest it should be changed to "“Hoodoo Mountain's".

I've deleted it because I don't think it's needed. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

"devitrified glass with heterolithic clasts": Heterolithic should be defined.

Since this isn't important I've decided to just delete it. I also wasn't able to find a definition for "heterolithic clasts". Volcanoguy 04:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

"Lava flows on the north–central flank display radially-oriented cooling joints" – perhaps explain the significance of radial joints (as has been done with the horizontal joints in an earlier paragraph).

The source doesn't explain the significance of radial joints. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Tephra layers

I think it would be helpful to give some indication of the distances from Hoodoo Mountain to Dease Lake, Finlay River and Bob Quinn Lake.

The source gives the distance from Hoodoo Mountain to Bob Quinn Lake but I don't see any for Dease Lake or the Finlay River. Volcanoguy 02:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Monitoring and volcanic hazards

These are geological subjects and should become a subsection of the Geology section.

Done. Volcanoguy 23:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Notes

Several terms are both wikilinked in the main text and defined in the Notes section. Why? Wikilinks (and/or very brief inline definitions in parentheses) are usually sufficient. Why are only these several terms and not every wikilinked word defined in the Notes section? I suggest these notes should be removed.

The notes are there to bring explanations within the article to the readers, and that's a WP:MOS issue. Several similar FACs have stalled/failed due to their inability to bring explanations for technical terms, even if they are wikilinked. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If the notes are kept, note 1 mentions "silicium" (which is copied from the cited source). In English, silicium seems to be an obsolete name for silicon (according to e.g. Collins English Dictionary). Perhaps the author/publisher of the source book forgot to translate the word from another language e.g. French or German, where it is the current correct term). "silicium" should be replaced by "silicon". I suppose the same cited source reference could be used but a better source using “silicon” can be found easily.

— GeoWriter (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it to "silicon". Volcanoguy 02:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support now that my questions have been answered and changes/fixes have been done. GeoWriter (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Support by Jo-Jo Eumerus

Going criteria-by-criteria:

• 1a
  • "Most of these eruptive periods were characterized by steady flows of lava" is an odd formulation that one could read as "one steady lava river"
    • I would have to disagree. One steady lava river would be "a steady flow of lava", not "steady flows of lava" which is plural. Volcanoguy 23:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Does "mantling"/"mantled" mean that the flows covered the entire area?
    • Changed "mantle" to "cover". Volcanoguy 20:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "A limited number of mammals " a limited number of individuals or of species?
    • Mammal species. Fixed. Volcanoguy 20:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • What's an ecosection?
    • An ecosection is a subdivision of an ecoregion. The article clearly makes the connection between the Southern Boundary Ranges Ecosection and the Boundary Ranges Ecoregion. Volcanoguy 20:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I've created an article for ecosection and linked it. Volcanoguy 00:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "previously drained basin" what does this mean?
    • Changed "basin" to "depression" if that's any better. Volcanoguy 21:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Hoodoo Mountain's constant struggle" a bit poetic.
    • Poetic how? Volcanoguy 21:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
      • It's a bit anthropomorphizing a volcano when the sentence doesn't even imply erosion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
        • It has to do with the volcano being surrounded and overlain by glacial ice, not erosion. I've seen the word "struggle" used in many different contexts. Even Kerr 1948 uses it: "Successive outflows from the volcano repeatedly disrupted the drainage, so that the flanking streams and glaciers have had a difficult struggle to maintain their channels." I don't see it as being anthropomorphic. Volcanoguy 20:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• 1b
  • Seems to fit, spot-checking some sources didn't find any omissions. One question, is there a more fine history on glaciation here?
    • No. Volcanoguy 20:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• 1c
  • Seems to fit, although I notice the somewhat expansive page number usage.
• 1d
  • Seems to fit.
• 1e
  • OK.
• 1f
  • The "drop random sentences into Google" test checks this out.
• 2a
• 2b
• 2c
  • All three seem to fit.
• 3
  • File:Hoodoo Mountain overview.jpg, File:Andrei Icefield.jpg, File:Hoodoo Glacier.jpg, File:Bronson Creek runway.jpg has too generic source linking.
    • Not necessarily as that's where I got the imagery from. The imagery is straight from the map on the right hand side. Volcanoguy 19:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
      • That would be a problem, then, because it says "Tiles © Esri — Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, UPR-EGP, and the GIS User Community, ESRI" which implies to me that the tiles may be copyrighted (not all works hosted on US government websites were made by the US government). @Nikkimaria:? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I've removed them. Volcanoguy 09:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• 4
  • Seems to fit.

Apropos of nothing, I wonder if Tseax Cone could be a future Canadian FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyhow, support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes I have thought about bringing the Tseax Cone article up to FA class in the past. It should be doable, although it would probably not be as large as the Hoodoo Mountain and Level Mountain articles given the fact that Tseax is just a small cinder cone. I will look into it eventually. Volcanoguy 05:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

However, there would be some material about historical activity to cover. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Historical activity doesn't matter to me much. One of the reasons why I prefer to write about Canadian volcanoes is that none of them are very active, which is ideal for FA because then their articles don't have to be updated every few years or so (e.g. Nevado del Ruiz and Ubinas). Volcanoguy 03:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

I feel like I'm expected to list things to change but honestly it seems fine to me as is. I'm not a geologist or volcanologist but understand everything better than I expected. There are a few terms I didn't know, but they are well linked, even with footnotes to give a quick overview of a jargony term (like aphanitic in the section Geology->Volcanic history->Eruptive periods—the term is linked but there's also a footnote providing a quick definition). And, frankly, I expect a page about a volcano and its geology to describe things using terms I'm not fully educated about. It strikes me as far less "difficult" to understand than, for example, Proteasome, Oxidative phosphorylation, or Irish phonology, just to pick three FA pages that get pretty technical. Pfly (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping, Pfly! I possibly could not have brought Hoodoo Mountain up to FA-class without your support. I know mountains and volcanoes are not your fields of expertize, but it's great to get non-experts to take a look at potential FA articles. Lots of things can be overlooked by people who are more knowledgeable in these fields, including jargony terms like "aphanitic" you mentioned or something else a non-expert doesn't quite understand. I hope to see your help on other FACs in the future. Volcanoguy 09:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Edziza may take longer to rewrite/expand than I thought it would. Might be better to work on smaller volcanic centres first. Volcanoguy 09:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Harry

Support, with three minor quibbles, none of which should hold up promotion. This is excellently written and engaging and flows nicely nicely. The only things I spotted to criticise:

• There is no human population within 30 kilometres (19 miles) of Hoodoo Mountain but 2,330 people live within 100 kilometres (62 miles) I presume these are approximate distances, in which case they should probably be rounded.
  • I don't understand what you mean here. Volcanoguy 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Each flow varies 10 to 30 metres (33 to 98 feet) thick and are separated by → is separated by?
  • I'm not sure about this. Volcanoguy 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
    • "Each flow... varies... is" Each flow is singular. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I've changed it to "Individual flows vary from 10 to 30 metres (33 to 98 feet) thick and are separated by". Volcanoguy 01:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
• This was followed by the discovery of the Discovery Vein What's the Discovery Vein? And if that's its name, can we use another adjective besides "discover"?
  • The given source doesn't seem to say what the Discovery Vein is, although it appears to be a mineral vein like the others mentioned in the Mining section. What would be a better adjective besides "discover"? Volcanoguy 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• How do the theses/dissertations in use meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?

The theses cited have been used in literature. The authors are also recognized specialists in the field. Volcanoguy 02:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? What literature? Recognized how? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The article cites 2 PhD theses and 1 Master's. Although PhD theses are often considered reliable, Masters' not so much per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

All of the theses cited in the article have been used in scientific publications. For example, Volcano-ice Interaction on Earth and Mars by the Geological Society of London, and the Quaternary Research journal by the Cambridge University Press). Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature". Volcanoguy 03:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

That's in reference to doctoral theses, not masters. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria if it's really that big of a deal I can remove the thesis and all information associated with it. Volcanoguy 16:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Has this particular thesis met the higher bar of "significant scholarly influence"? If no, that would be the best approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I was able to find an article in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences to replace the Master's thesis. Volcanoguy 17:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't mix citation and cite-family templates
  • Fixed (I think). Volcanoguy 01:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent in when/if publication locations are included
  • Fixed. Volcanoguy 01:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Fn8: the OCLC links to a different edition?
  • Fixed. Volcanoguy 02:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• There are multiple citations to different parts of the Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes, but with different publishers? Ditto Volcanoes of Canada. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Volcanoguy 01:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Latter of these is still inconsistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. Volcanoguy 17:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks buidhe. Volcanoguy 09:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2021 [25].

---

My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Dear Princess Celestia... (that joke's probably not funny anymore)

If you were on the Internet during the early 2010s, then chances are you've heard of this little girls' "toy advertisement" or, more likely, their fandom: the "bronies". While some might find it unsurprising these days, it was hugely unexpected that adult men would get attached to a show about singing, pastel ponies designed to sell toys to the point that it became one of 2011's best Internet memes (that's not just me, look it up). Really, this show is great. Don't question that.

But we're not talking about the show's quality. We're talking about this article's. Hopefully, it can exemplify Wikipedia's best work but it may not. This article has gone through four featured article nominations prior to this one, all nominated by different editors in the first half of the last decade. Ten years since the article's first nomination (intentional), let's try again. This is my first featured article nomination so I'm very nervous :P. I'd like to thank Wingwatchers, SNUGGUMS and Z1720 for commenting on the article's most recent peer review and all those who commented on reviews and nominations before that... (how do I end this?) Pamzeis (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Per WP:FILMCAST, can citations be added to the cast section? Wingwatchers (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Um... what? Firstly, this is not a film list; secondly, it says citations are only needed for uncredited roles, which aren't present here (seriously, even "Gravy Boat" is credited). Pamzeis (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis, I am only suggesting that adding them would be sohow conveniently helpful, I guess that's optional. Wingwatchers (talk) 04:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

How so? Pamzeis (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, switching topic.., ref #12 is permanent deadlinked and there isn't an archive link attached to it. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've removed it as it's not necessary anyways. Pamzeis (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wingwatchers. It has been almost a week since you left your last comment, and I was wondering whether you were going to leave more or were in a position to support or oppose? Neither is obligatory, of course. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I would have to see the final results and comments. Wingwatchers (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

With the three-week-mark approaching, and little progress, I'll attempt for the image review.

• File:My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic logo - 2017.svg — It is a non free image with an appropriate rational.
• File:Lauren Faust.jpg — CC 2.0 from Flickr.
• File:Jayson Thiessen and Sethisto at BroNYCon Sept. 2011 cropped.jpg — Own work of a user, good faith assumed on authorship.
• File:Daniel ingram.png — Own work of a user, good faith assumed on authorship.
• File:Mlp fim storyboard sample.png — Another non free image, with appropriate rational. 2 non-free images in an article are allowed, but ... I'l still appreciate if you can further elaborate how is this specific image useful.
  • Hopefully, done.
• File:C2E2 2013 - Twilight Sparkle (8701577779).jpg — CC 2.0 from Flickr.
• ALT text looks fine.

Overall, looks fine on images. Would appreciate if you could clarify just one point above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your image review, Kavyansh.Singh! I have responded to the one point above, hopefully satisfactorily. If there's anything else you'd like to point out, please do! Again, thank you! Pamzeis (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I feel that my concerns have been addressed to satisfactory level. Both the non-free files are used to depict fairly different things. So coordinators can considered this a pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot-checks — Pass

Version reviewed — this. Have randomly selected these references for spot-checking by a random number selector:

• Ref#133 — OK (link)
• Ref#87 — OK (link)
• Ref#57 — Mostly OK, but which part of the source cited that "she is allowed be as exaggerated"? (link)
  • "I can go as over the top as I want"
• Ref#75 — OK (link)
• Ref#10 — OK (link)
• Ref#77 — OK (link)
• Ref#85 — OK (link)
• Ref#152 — OK (link)
• Ref#164 — OK (link)
• Ref#62 — OK (link)
• Ref#39 — OK (link)
• Ref#139 — Mostly OK, but which part of the source cited that [t]he "series had a triple-digit year-to-year growth"? (link)
  • If you scroll down to "Year-to-Year Program Highlights (all times ET)" and look at the bit regarding MLP:FIM, it says that the growth for demographics are: "Kids 2-11 (297%), Kids 6-11 (+83%), Adults 18-49 (+226%), Women 18-49 (+1033%), Adults 25-54 (+231%), Women 25-54 (+1067%), Persons 2+ (+173%), and Households (+131%)", which is triple-digit; I noticed, however, that there was also quadruple-digit growth so I've added that to the article.
• Ref#41 — OK, but I doubt the source's reliability (link)
  • Just a note on this source that it's from the show's creator, Lauren Faust

With almost all the source verifying the prose, just some clarification needed at few points. Rest, I think, the spot-checking here is mostly fine. Though, this is not a complete source review. Someone needs to check for Formatting and Reliability of sources. Ping me if I need to do more spot-checks, but much of it appears all right. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the spot-checks, Kavyansh.Singh. I have responded to the above. Pamzeis (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinators may consider this one a pass for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Nearly three weeks in and this nomination has garnered no general supports. Unless considerable further progress is made towards a consensus to support by the three week mark I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• This is not gathering any momentum and so I am going to archive it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2021 [26].

---

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 1986 disaster during the launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger that killed all 7 astronauts aboard. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Support with regard to FA Criterion 1A. Graham Beards (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:RogersCommission-v1p57_cropped.jpg: if I'm understanding correctly, the Rogers Commission as an entity is separate from NASA, and therefore this should not have a NASA tag

  Tag changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Challenger_explosion.jpg: neither of the Photo ID links are working for me, and the Flickr link has an NC license. Is there an alternate link?

  I dug around on NASA Images and couldn't find one; I think the only option is to use it under WP:FAIR. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  From the FP nomination I found this, which looks like the original source, not copyrighted. I would suggest to revert to the original image, though, or state clearly that this is an edited version. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks like this is still pending? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Missed this. I'll replace the photo with the version supplied by Kusma. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Updated the infobox photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Booster_Rocket_Breach_-_GPN-2000-001425.jpg: none of the source links appear to be working. Ditto for File:STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg, File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg, as well as the source image for File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg

  Added new links for STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  Removed File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Where is "File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg"? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  It was in the navbox that was removed per below. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have added the archive URL of the source image [27] that was then used to create File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg. The latter can be used now. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Challenger_Memorial1.JPG needs a tag for the memorial itself

  I'm a little confused; are you asking for the license info to be added to the permission parameter? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  No - the licensing given is that of the photographer, but the memorial itself could potentially qualify for copyright protection, and the US does not have freedom of panorama, so a separate tag is needed to cover the copyright of the memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

  I couldn't find the license for the memorial; I removed that photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:CCCP_Buran.png: don't see that licensing at given source.

  Removed that navbox. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I think I have addressed all of your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Eewilson... pending other reviews

---

Pending other reviews (sources, etc.), I support. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

---

I am reviewing spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, and related things. It's a long article, so likely to take it in pieces.

• Explain or link "aft" - or "aft field joint attachment"

  Looks like it's already linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Not in the Lead. That's where I was looking. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown;" The exact timing of the deaths?

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Should Morton Thiokol be hyphenated or unhyphenated? Shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article?

  McDonald's book doesn't use hyphens; I've standardized the article to "Morton Thiokol". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is "lift off" two words or a compound word?

  "liftoff" is a compound word in the Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionaries. Standardized to one word. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Each field joint was sealed with two rubber O-rings around the circumference of the SRB and 0.280 inches (7.1 mm) in diameter." Unclear sentence.

  Reworded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "extruded" - clarify or link to Wikipedia or Wiktionary

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "tang and clevis" or "tang-and-clevis" - hyphenated or not? Might depend on usage. Check it.

  According to McDonald, it is a hyphenated word. Only use in the article of an unhyphenated version is when describing how the tang and clevis bent away from each other. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Joint rotation, which occurred when the tang and clevis bent away from each other, up to .052 inches (1.3 mm), which reduced the pressure on the O-rings and weakened their seals, making it possible for combustion gases to erode the O-rings." This needs a little tweaking to be an actual sentence.

  Changed wording. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Verification/Certification Committee" - is that the actual name of the committee and can you specify with whom the committee was associated? Was it independent? Did it consist of NASA employees? Morton-Tiokol?

  It's the actual name (p. 125 of the Rogers Commission). I added that it was a NASA committee. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "further tests on joint integrity, to include testing in the temperature range of 40 to 90 °F" The comma after integrity can be removed.

  Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• This sentence has some confusing pronoun/noun and verb tense usage, thus making it unclear: "McNair and Resnik would deploy the Shuttle-Pointed Autonomous Research Tool for Astronomy (SPARTAN) satellite, which has previously flown aboard Discovery in June 1985, would photograph the comet for two days and then be recovered and returned to Earth."

  Split into two sentences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. I did a bit of grammar correction, but good. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Additionally, Onizuka planned to observe and photograph the comet from Challenger flight deck." Either "from Challenger's flight deck" or "from the Challenger flight deck".

  Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Based upon O-ring erosion and blowby that had occurred in warmer launches" What's a "blowby"?

  Removed. "O-ring erosion" should explain the problem well enough. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  So we've still got a couple of instances of the word "blowby" in the Rogers Commission section, and there is no explanation of what blowby is. Can you remedy that? Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Took the term out entirely and just said it was gas blowing by the O-ring. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Haha... I just Googled "blowby". So apparently, it's pronounced with a long I at the end (as I'm sure you know), and I was pronouncing it "blow-bee". <eyeroll> No wonder it wasn't making sense to me. Maybe instead of "gas blowing by the O-ring", clarify whether the O-ring was blowing the gas or whether the gas was blowing from somewhere else and near the O-ring ("blowing by" could mean either). Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Whoops! Understandable mistake; it's not a common word. Changed it to "blowing past". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Very good. Check. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wow, this whole event was a sad circus of error and hell. I will never forget it. :( Continuing later...

Eewilson (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC

• I don't see where the acronym "SSME" is spelled out the first time it is used.

  Spelled out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Spell out "max q" as "maximum dynamic pressure (max q)" the first time it is used so the reader doesn't have to click the link to understand the term. Also "g-force," "apogee,"

  Explained. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Acronym "LOX" at "LOX tank" needs to be spelled out first time.

  Spelled out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  OH! That makes sense. :) Had no idea. Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "...until the range safety control officer initiated their self-destruct charges..." It is unclear here who and where the range safety control officer was.

  Added the RSO is on the ground; is that what you are looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. That's good. However, in the section "Vehicle breakup", text is written like this: range safety control officer, in lowercase with no acronym. Later, in the "Recovery of debris and crew" section, it's spelled in title case as Range Safety Officer (RSO) with the acronym and wikilinked. If these are the same thing, put the wikilinked part with the acronym RSO up higher in "Vehicle breakup" and just use the acronym later (if you choose to use it at all - otherwise just leave it out of the article all together). Also, is it an actual title? Then it should be title case. If not, then not. Be consistent with that. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Standardized and changed to lower-case; inconsistency between sources resulted in this, but I'm going with the wording from the Rogers Commission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "middeck" hyphenated or one word?

  Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hyphenated. Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "but this system would not have been usable during an explosion during ascent" See if you can change one of the "during" to a different word

  Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Changed the first "during" to "in". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  There must have been 3 "during"s in that sentence! Look in section "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster#Prospect of crew escape", second part of the final sentence in the paragraph. See what you can do with that one, but if you think it needs both of the during, then it should be fine. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Think I fixed it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good. Check. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "All nine joints on each SRB were disabled, which many of the broken sections subsequently breaking into smaller pieces." Something is wrong with this sentence.

  Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Decided to remove the entire sentence; it doesn't add to the narrative. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's fine. Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Resnik's remains were not recovered or were not identified? No mention of her burial. If this is the case, perhaps that should be mentioned in the Funeral ceremonies section.

  As far as I can tell, Resnik's family has never publicly stated what happened to her remains. I found a forum post (definitely not WP:RS) that said she was buried at sea, but couldn't find anything else. As I couldn't find any sources that specifically said her family refused to share what happened to her remains, I decided the best course of action was to make no mention of it at all, rather than attribute the lack of information to her family. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  I can see your point on that. Probably best to be kept as you have it. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I made some minor cleanups.

Without source review, it appears factual without POV or OR. I did not study the relevance of any of the prose, any needs for editing or rewrite, or sources.

Eewilson (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

General

• Is there a reason why we have both this article and STS51-L? It seems that the two could be merged.

  I think there could be differences between the articles. Doing a quick skim of STS-51-L, there's not much information that isn't in the Challenger disaster page, but the page could, in theory, have more information about the mission itself (experiments, crew, crew selection, training, etc.), much like how there are separate pages for STS-107 and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. I understand there are differences in that comparison, as STS-107 was an entire mission that ended in disaster while STS-51-L only lasted for 73 seconds, but I think there is information that belongs on an STS-51-L page but not the disaster page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  It falls in between STS-107 (which went for two weeks, and for which two articles makes sense) and Apollo 1 (which never left the ground and has only one article) but obviously closer to the latter. Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I find it jarring that "O-ring concerns" comes before "Space Shuttle mission" but maybe that's just a matter of taste.

• This came up during the GA review. The body of the article started with information about the mission and then went into safety concerns, but the feedback was that it jumped chronologically, as the mission section discusses the run up to launch, followed by a jump back in time to the dangers of the program and the decision to launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• I would prefer if instead of "the tenth flight for the Challenger orbiter" it said "the Xth flight of the Space Shuttle and the tenth flight of the Challenger"

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think there is a bit more to say about the impact of the disaster. The Space Shuttle Program was re-oriented away from the launch of commercial satellites.

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink orbiter.

  Why shouldn't this be linked? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ooops. Unlink the second link to Space Shuttle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link reentry

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the orbiter has no escape system" -> the orbiter had no escape system

  Someone else updated this one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

O-rings

• Link Space Shuttle

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Space Shuttle mission

• Split the second paragrah after "Onizuka planned to observe and photograph the comet from the Challenger flight deck"

  Split. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link mission specialist, payload specialist Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Recovery of debris and crew

• Unlink Inertial Upper Stage, TDRS-B, Gregory Jarvis

  Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "USS Preserver (ARS-8)" -> "rescue and salvage ship USS Preserver"

  Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Gregory Jarvis" -> Jarvis

  Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Public response

• Indent Roger Commission so "U.S. House Committee report" is not a subheading

  I think Rogers Commission belongs as a top-level heading due to its significance as the official investigation of the disaster. The reason the House investigation is a sub-header is that it appears to mostly be a review of the Rogers Commission rather than a completely separate investigation. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink Johnson Space Center

  Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

NASA response

• can we say what changes were made to the Space Shuttles, to procedures, and to management?

  The article mentions the redesigned SRBs, use of pressure suits, and establishments of the safety office. What else are you looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The article says that "the Space Shuttle program resumed its flying schedule". As noted in the previous paragraph, that isn't quite right. The flight rate was greatly reduced.

  Changed the wording to say that it resumed flying. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Dick Truly was appointed adminstrator

  This was several years after the fact; I can't find a source that indicates this was because of the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The SSMEs were modified.

  Added, along with some other Space Shuttle modifications. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Plans to launch from Vandenberg AFB were scrapped.

  I feel like I've always heard that SLC-6 was cancelled because of Challenger, but I can't find any good sources that indicate it was closed because of the disaster. I'm sure the temporary shutdown of the Space Shuttle program didn't help, but it seems like there were already numerous delays and setbacks at Vandenberg AFB before then. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Shuttle-Centaur was abandoned.

  Much like SLC-6, I think of this more as something that was cancelled during a bad time as NASA; not one that was cancelled as a direct result of the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The Teacher in Space Project was cancelled (although it was later revived and McAuliffe's backup, Barbara Morgan later became an astronaut).

  Added this. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The number of Criticality 1 and 1R items was reduced

  I can't find anything that supports the reduction in Criticality 1/1R items; where did you see this info? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink Jay Greene, who should just be "Greene"

  Unlinked and abbreviated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Media

• "General Kutyna" -> Kutyna"

  Shortened. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In 2009, Allan McDonald, along with space historian James Hansen, published his memoir Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.[91][2] McDonald's book focused on his personal involvement" Having jsut said he didn't write it, this read oddly. Suggest: "In 2009, Allan McDonald published his memoir written with space historian James Hansen, Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, which focused on his personal involvement"

  Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Legacy

• Resnick and MacAuliffe also have craters on Venus named after them

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Unlink Johnson Space Center

  Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hawkeye7 I have addressed your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kusma

I did a thorough read through of the article as GA reviewer, and the further improvements since then take it to FA level. I just have one observation:

• A film, The Challenger Disaster, was released on January 25, 2019; it depicted fictional characters participating in the decision process to launch.

This directly follows a line about a different production also called The Challenger Disaster, which is slightly confusing. Naming the film maker and using active voice would fix this. —Kusma (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I couldn't come up with a good way to convert this to the active voice; I kept getting stuck on how to say "released" as media cannot release itself. But I added the director for the 2019 movie; I couldn't find the director for the BBC movie from a reliable source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It's fine now. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

ReviewSupport by Neopeius

Lead

• I'd put the first sentence of the second paragraph as the last sentence of the first paragraph.

  Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

O-Ring Concerns

I feel like this section throws the reader into the article abruptly. Perhaps 1. renaming the section "Pre-mission concerns (O-Ring issues)" and 2. An introductory sentence to the section: "Almost from conception, the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters, particularly the O-Ring reinforcements for each of their four segments, were noted as an item of concern." Or something along those lines.

I'm not a fan of the new section title; I think that makes it seem just like STS-51-L specific terms (as discussed under "decision to launch") and this should be specifically about issues with O-rings that were noted and discussed prior to STS-51-L. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think your version of the intro throws a lot of information at the reader without explaining it. I've tried to think of a good way to lead with the O-rings, but I keep feeling like the paragraph then has to backtrack to discuss things that were mentioned in the intro (What does an O-ring do in an SRB? What do the SRBs do for the Space Shuttle?). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Then how about "Concerns over the systems that ultimately caused the Challenger disaster dated back to the early 1970s." Then the reader knows we're about to be talking about the systems that failed.

Added with a few extra words. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring may not provide a backup to the primary O-ring,

In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring could not be relied on as a backup to the primary O-ring,

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot has blown past the primary O-ring

In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot had blown past the primary O-ring

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch at the time

The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch to date

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Space Shuttle Mission

No issues

Decision to Launch

• Suggest deleting the first sentence of the first paragraph, moving the next two sentences to start the next paragraph, and moving the last two sentences to the start of the fourth paragraph.

  I kept first sentence and brought it to the next paragraph, but otherwise made this change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It just seems weird to describe the temperature on 1-28 and then go back to the conference on 1-27. How about:

"Weather forecasts suggested that a launch the morning of January 28 would occur during record-low air temperatures for a Space Shuttle launch. Previously, the coldest O-ring temperatures..."

This is what I went with "The air temperature on January 28 was predicted to be a record-low" I think this helps with chronology, as it's a prediction, not the actual temperature. The actual temperature is addressed at the end of the section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest then deleting The weather forecasts predicted record-low temperatures for a Space Shuttle launch so from the second paragraph (which is now part of the first paragraph). Make "A conference call was set up on the evening of January 27..." its own sentence.

  Change made. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Launch and failure

Prospect of Crew Escape

• Launch escape systems were considered during the Space Shuttle's development

Launch escape systems had been considered during the Space Shuttle's development

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Recovery of debris and crew

No issues

Public Response

White House Response

• Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.

Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials had suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Media Coverage

• To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.

To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA had arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Rogers Commission

• It also recommended that the Space Shuttle program's management should be restructured to keep project managers from being pressured by the Space Shuttle organization

Pressured to do/not to do what?

Added " pressured to adhere to unsafe deadlines" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates.

In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates had indicated.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

U.S. House Committee Report

• The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission on the failed SRB field joint as the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.

The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission that the failed SRB field joint was the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

NASA Response

No issues.

Legacy

• Onizuka carried a soccer ball with his personal effects that was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.

Onizuka had included a soccer ball with his personal effects; it was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Media

Books

• Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program was a flawed and politicized program from its inception.

Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program had been a flawed and politicized program from its inception.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Film and Television

• The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka for an inaccurate portrayal of events.

The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka as an inaccurate portrayal of events.

Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Further notes

This is a great article that just needs the above polishing. I have not done a citation review, and there are lots of citations to review. I leave that to the next person (I would not recommend support until that be done).

@Neopeius: I have addressed all of your points; thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Will review the review tomorrow so I have fresh eyes. :) Thanks for your quick work! --Neopeius (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Personal note

I was nearly 12 on January 28, 1986. About an hour before launch, my dad was driving me to school, and a report came on the radio. The announcer noted that it was the coldest launch ever, and that technicians were chipping ice off the wings of the shuttle. I told my father, "They shouldn't launch today. It's too cold. Something's going to happen."

An hour later, our social studies teacher wheeled a TV into our classroom and we watched the replay of the disaster...

The disaster was a few years before I was born, so the Space Shuttle was the launch vehicle I grew up with. I learned about the Challenger disaster as a kid, but after reading so much about it, especially the news coming out immediately after the disaster, reminded me of all of the uncertainty and confusion in the news following the Columbia disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

--Neopeius (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Balon Greyjoy: Okay, I got some spare time before the weekend. :) I made suggestions that should be better for you. Other than that, looks good! Thanks so much. And congrats getting a source review. I suspect you'll be good to go by early next week! --Neopeius (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Neopeius: Thanks for the review; I think I have addressed all of your points! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• Please run the External Links tool and fix your broken stuff.

  This was run not too long ago. I ran it just now and added archive links, but it doesn't look like it marked any refs as dead links. Is there a broken one in particular? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• What makes AmericaSpace a reliable source? Looking for information on their editorial/fact-checking process, authoritativeness of authors, reference to them from other reliable source referring to them as authoriatiative and reliable.

  Replaced with a better source/removed information not in the new source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fn 13 is missing a publication/work.

  Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fn 15 - "Item no longer available"

  Not sure what the protocol is with a book's website going offline, since the book itself hasn't changed. Regardless, updated the reference to the newer edition of the book that is already used throughout the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Fn 35–36, 43, and others - need consistent italicizing of The New York Times.

  Standardized. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• Titles of newspapers and magazines in general are inconsistently formatted.

  I've standardized the news articles with one another. The scholarly journals should also be in line with one another. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• New York Times I believe has the same paywall model as the LA Times (which you marked as requiring a subscription) so please make sure they're consistent.

  LA Times won't let someone without a subscription read the article, while the NY Times allows a few free articles without one. This is only from my personal testing, but using a cookie-free browser allowed me to read NY Times articles and no LA Times articles. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• What makes collectspace.com a reliable source?

  Replaced with a better source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Otherwise looks good! --Laser brain (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Balon Greyjoy. I think the issues I saw with the External Links tool must have been temporary because it's coming up clean now. Please consider the source review concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review! Always good to know that no matter how standardized and perfect I think my refs are, there are issues I've missed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Extended commentary and replies on prose moved to talk page to avoid bogging down the review page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose for now. I have concerns about prose (1a). I'm mainly looking at readability and flow, but I'm also seeing what looks like excess detail in places. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm watching the article and the FAC with great interest and I'm very impressed with the improvements so far. I haven't reviewed all the changes yet but you're definitely on the right track. I'll be back over the next couple of days to reply in more detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Glad to hear that I'm headed in the right direction! I'll make some more edits today, but I'm leaving for the long weekend, so I won't be making any edits between Wednesday night and Monday morning (UK time). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm impressed. I think we're almost there. I'm happy with the quality of the prose, which is much improved. I've made a few copy edits; please check those. I think a sentence or two about the history of the space shuttle program would be helpful at the beginning of the Space Shuttle section for a little context. And I think there's still a bit too much detail in the O-rings section. I feel some of the names/dates/places could be trimmed to improve readability and focus on the details that are relevant to the Challenger disaster. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

No complaints with your copy edits; thanks for getting that done! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Added a sentence about the history of the Space Shuttle program (when it started; what the shuttle's primary role is). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed some of the wording in the O-ring section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I think I have addressed your points; let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. I believe all my concerns have been addressed. While I mostly focused on prose and readability in my comments, I'm as satisfied as I can be that all the criteria are now met. Kudos to Balon Greyjoy for putting so much work into this important article and for responding to comments so thoroughly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2021 [28].

---

Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747)

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A typical naval battle from the age of sail. It was of some importance at the time, but seems to have been largely escaped detailed scholarly scrutiny. Which means that the article is short, but that I believe that it contains pretty much all there is to be said about the battle. Fresh from GAN I believe that this meets the FAC criteria, but stand ready to repel boarders. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text

Added.

• Don't use fixed px size

Fixed.

• File:Henri_Francois_Des_Herbiers_de_l_Etenduere.jpeg needs a US tag

Fixed.

• File:Gravure_francaise_sur_combat_naval_1747_(cropped).jpeg needs a US tag and more details on the original source - it appears the credit line is for the reproduction?

Is the statement on the original "Published ... 1781" not sufficient? (Bottom left.)

• File:Trois_vaisseaux_francais_captures_a_la_bataille_du_cap_finisterre_oct_1747.jpg: where was this first published?

Is the statement on the original "{Published ... 1751" not sufficient? (Bottom right corner.)

Nikkimaria (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, all addressed, but a couple of queries I would value your opinion on. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

For both of those statements... to be honest even after you've pointed them out, I can't read them! Can you quote them in full? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"File:Trois vaisseaux francais captures a la bataille du cap finisterre oct 1747.jpg" reads "Published according to Act of Parliament [June 1 of] 1751". {Square brackets indicates that the resolution is poor enough that I am partially guessing as to the text.]

"File:Gravure francaise sur combat naval 1747 L Etanduere.jpeg": to be frank, it is at the limit of what I can make out. I can strain and see what I want to, but the bits I can be sure about are "[unclear word] per [unclear word] 1 1751". But note that the agency which sells prints of exhibits on behalf of the French national museums attributes it to 1751 - [29].

Hi Nikkimaria. I can make out one, but am struggling with the other - not helped by my rusty French. (My usual translator is on holiday.) Is what I have above sufficient, or will I have to delete one or both? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Why not just go by what the museums say here? For the first image, the Royal Greenwich Museum says that it was made January 29th 1751.[30] For the second image, the Réunion des Musées Nationaux-Grand Palais dates it to 1781.[31] It also claims the image resolution is 4471 x 7024px, which if it could be opened at that resolution should mean the text would be legible. The bottom right text of that image says 'Gravé par Hubert'. Perhaps Hubert-François Gravelot? François Hubert. The style is very much like some his works that can be seen here. I can suggest that the bottom left tells us who made the design ['Dessine'], but I cannot, as yet, make out who that might be beyond 'Gra...t'. As I write this, Eureka. Look at this one, Dessine par Graincourt ; Gravé par Hubert' and the date is 1780, a year earlier. That is Antoine Graincourt. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Just an added note that I've mistaken Gravelot for another François Hubert.[32] My bad. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The tagging in use relies on publication date rather than creation date - if a site gives only "date" it's hard to tell whether it was or was not published at that time. If the image itself says it was published at that time then it's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"File:Gravure francaise sur combat naval 1747 (cropped).jpeg" regretfully removed, which resolves the outstanding issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Splendid stuff. Crisp, clear and highly readable.

Thank you Tim. I do find these smaller topics a refreshing change of pace.

A few minor prose quibbles:

• Lead

• "Rear-admiral Edward Hawke" – in our WP article, and more importantly in the OED – there is no hyphen in "rear admiral" – same for later hyphenated rears.

I doubt it not. But in 1747 it was. Hawke would have been scandalised to have been referred to as a "rear admiral" and would have had the miscreant swabbing decks. If they were lucky. Obviously this is reflected in the sources. It is the normal convention (I believe) to refer to people by the ranks and titles they held at the time, parentasising explanations as necessary. Although 'rear-admiral (rear admiral)' seemed unnecessary!

I see "Rear Admiral Ogle" and "Rear Admiral Haddock" in the government journal The London Gazette 29 March–1 April 1740, but in the same paper's report of the battle (26 October 1747) the commanding officer is "Rear-Admiral Hawke". Applying your precept, with which I agree, you need to capitalise both bits of "Rear-Admiral" if using the contemporary title. I've had a swift rummage in the archives and all the London papers from around that date capitalise both bits, and the majority use the hyphen. – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, caught! I cannot explain why I have used the contemporary hyphen, also used in modern sources, but not the second upper case initial, also used in the modern sources. Strange how our habitual usages trip us up. Thank you for being alert. Done. (I note that I have done this in one of the cations! I am officially an idiot.)

Speaking as a fellow idiot, I should say there are a lot of us about, but we do some good nonetheless. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The War of the Austrian Succession (1740 – 1748)" – unspaced en-dashes rather than spaced?

Arrrgh!

• "anticipating they would likely be lost" – if this article is meant to be in BrE, the Americanism "would likely" ought to be amended to "would probably"

I keep doing that!

• "provide significant supplies" – significant? what did they signify?

Does the OED not have a meaning of "Having a noticeable or major effect"? (Source: Wiktionary) [Not done. Further discussion invited.]

Plain Words on significant: this is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large … it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?' In 'A significant number of Government supporters abstained', 'There was no significant loss of power when the engine was tested with lower-octane fuel', this question can clearly be answered; but the writers of the following had no such significance in mind:

• Even after this ... reduction the size of our labour force in (a particular factory) will remain significantly larger than it was a year ago. (Appreciably)
• A significantly higher level of expenditure must be expected on libraries etc. (Considerably)
• After the low proportion of commitments in respect of new dwellings during the fourth quarter there was a significant upturn in January. (Marked)

In the last example the upturn (or increase) might, it is true, have been significant; but the context shows that it was not, and no one is going to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who writes of a low proportion of commitments in respect of new dwellings. – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "if necessary gains in Europe could be exchanged" – I'd be inclined to put a comma before "gains"

Done.

• "The British tried to …taking advantage of its naval superiority" – plural-v-singular clash

Oops.

• Prelude

• "Hawke was tasked …Hawke was given detailed orders" – perhaps just "he" the second time?

Done.

• Battle

• "The French were sighted by the British squadron eight days after sailing, off Cape Finisterre, early on the morning of 14 October" – ambiguous: perhaps something on the lines of "Eight days after sailing, the French were sighted by the British squadron off Cape Finisterre early on the morning of 14 October."

Done.

• "which had sailed … which they were rated" – perhaps a "that" for one of the two?

I have deleted the second "which".

• "each of them had their mobility restricted" – singular-v-plural clash. Perhaps "had its mobility…"?

I would have used 'her', but I have decided to avoid the howls of outrage.

• "due to damage to their rigging" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

Interesting. Selecting a volume at random finds the venerable Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption using the term 51 times in this sense in just the third volume of his magisterial history of the Hundred Years' War. But only 28 in the fourth. May I suggest that in this, possibly unique, case your source may be a tad behind common usage?

Jonathan Sumption, with his charming views on the value of the life of a woman with cancer and his dismissal of our anti-Covid measures as "collective hysteria and governmental folly", is not a man I'd be inclined to emulate. The current (2015) edition of Fowler acknowledges that in the 21st century this use of "due to" is widely seen, but reminds readers of Fowler's comment that it is the practice of the illiterate. The Guardian's style guide gives the traditional view that it should only be used when it is the complement of the verb 'to be', and could be replaced by 'caused by'; "otherwise, use 'owing to' or 'because of'." – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Not like you to tackle the man rather than the ball Tim. (You can probably imagine my views on Sumption's opinions in general, but I have almost always found his expression of them clear, logical and insightful.) It was the first hefty e-volume to hand written by a respected (or perhaps not) academic historian.. Regardless, while I tend to taking Fowler as strongly indicative rather than definitive, if the Grudian Style Guide is with it then I surrender. "due to" replaced and I shall endevour, probably with incomplete success, to avoid it in future.

Hmm, while not wholly convinced, you raise more than enough doubts for me to substitute it in this case and to make a mental note to be more cautious with it in future.

Probably a losing battle, I fear, against the American take-over of the Queen's English, but one fights the good fight. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Aftermath

• "were not self sufficient" – the OED hyphenates self-sufficient

Hyphenated.

• "France recovered her colonial possessions which had been captured by the British in return for withdrawing" – I think you need to fence the subordinate clause off with a comma before "which" and another before "in".

It seems to me that one is only required after "British, which I have inserted. But I stand ready to corrected.

• Afterthought – if the colonial possessions we're talking about were not all France's colonies, I think perhaps "that" (commaless) rather than "which" is needed – restrictive-v-non-restricted.

Do you mean not all in the sense of some being Spain's, or not being the totality of France's?

The sentence means either that the British had captured all France's colonial possessions but gave them all back in return for the withdrawal, or that the British had captured some of France's colonial possessions but gave them back in return for the withdrawal. It is the difference between a non-restrictive and a restrictive clause:

• France recovered her colonial possessions, which had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing.
• France recovered her colonial possessions that had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing.

But for clarity it might in any case be better to rejig the sentence:

• In return for withdrawing, France recovered her colonial possessions, which had been captured by the British.
• In return for withdrawing, France recovered her colonial possessions that had been captured by the British.

(There are some ardent opponents of the passive voice who would insist that "which/that had been captured by the British" should be "which/that the British had captured, but it isn't a point on which I feel strongly.) – Tim riley talk 07:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

It may - ok, it most certainly is - due to (oops!) my pig ignorance of the finer nuances of English grammar but those look synonymistic (sic) to me. So I have gone with "In return for withdrawing, France recovered those colonial possessions that had been captured by the British" feeling that the important distinction you wish to be drawn may be better grasped by a reader with this. If I have merely further mangled the prose, please don't hesitate to say.

You have it spot-on now, in my view. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll look in again once you've had the chance to ponder the above. – Tim riley talk 18:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, I believe that I have mentioned before that I feel better once you have gone through any of my articles. All of you comments addressed, a few even with less than full agreement! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is nearly always fruitless, but it is so educational I feel unmotivated to stop. Thank you. And I should employ you as a research assistant! Fancy a collaboration? I have had my eye on Battle of Quiberon Bay for a couple of years now. The French language version is excellent, while ours is not. (The "Battle" section is entirely based on a 1907 source, except for some 1867 intrusions.) To a large extent this FAC and Battle of Lagos, which you also reviewed, are practice runs for Quiberon Bay.

Any hoo, your further points now addressed. I await continuing broadsides. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

No further broadsides. As a proud holder of the Queen's Award for Cowardice, I do not write articles on military or naval history, but I am very happy to add my support for the elevation of this excellent article to FA, and I look forward to seeing it enliven our front page. Tim riley talk 20:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

HF - Support

• "while Its colonies were left to fend for themselves" - Lowercase its

Done.

• Can it be briefly said in a sentence or two what the War of the Austrian Succession was fought over?

I had thought that the name of the war may be sufficient, but now unpacked a little further.

• I think it would be helpful to indicate where exactly Cape Finisterre was

This turned out to be surprisingly difficult. See what you think of the revised first sentence of the "Battle " section.

I think that works. (I would have personally guessed that Cape Finisterre was the location, without that clarification). 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "252 merchantmen and others" - I'm assuming #251 was the Indiaman and #252 was Castor. But Castor is only directly mentioned in the listing of ships at the end. Should she be mentioned in the prose as well, as the 252nd ship?

Good point. You assume correctly. (Separately listing one Indiaman and a single frigate, neither of which were engaged, in the infobox seemed a bit much.) Done.

• Sources and images look fine

I am assuming that this doesn't constitue a full source review? Or does it?

No, but I will do one. Hog Farm _Talk 20:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent work, as usual. Hog Farm _Talk 05:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks muchly for the review, the insightful comments and the kind words. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Sources all appear to be reliable
• Anderson needs the location

Added.

• page 320 here says that the battle was fought well to the north of the cape itself, is that useful?

The battle was fought here, while Cape Finisterre is here. So, yes, well to the south. But the battle isn't named after that Cape Finisterre, it was named after the sea region Finisterre, a vaguely defined area to the west of the French department Finistère, the western part of Brittany. I could give you lots more OR if you want, but the sources don't go any further.

BTW, two naval orientated RSs give a different account of why Hawke was first off Spain and then intercepted the French much further north.

• Not finding any major sources that aren't represented.

Did you find many sources at all?

Not really. I found the item linked above, a single paragraph in a different work by Black, and some primary source papers by Hawke. Nothing that would really be useful here. Hog Farm _Talk 22:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good on sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 20:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Hog Farm, you are having a busy day on Wikipedia. See above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Mr rnddude

• Any particular reason for Fougueux to be the only ship of the line not to be either blue or red linked?

My sloppiness. Now red linked/

• "In return for withdrawing, France recovered those colonial possessions that had been captured by the British, in return for withdrawing from her gains in the Austrian Netherlands (modern Belgium)" - Repetition in italics, I'd drop the first instance and remove the comma.

Done.

• "... when the French King would prove reluctant ..." - Nitpick, but you could just use simple past tense here.

True. Done.

• "Herbiers did succeed in his objective of protecting the convoy, of the 250 merchantmen, only seven were captured" - Pretty sure this is a comma splice

Second comma removed.

• "The balance continued to the West Indies, but, warned of their approach, the British Leeward Islands Squadron under Commodore George Pocock was able to intercept many of them in late 1747 and early 1748" - Forgive my ignorance, but I don't know what the meaning of this sentence is. What does it mean for the balance to continue to the West Indies and whom are the British intercepting? I assume 'balance of the war', but does that mean that the West Indies was having more impact than the campaign in mainland Europe?

"of the convoy" added to clarify what the subject of "the balance" was. (As the previous sentence was "Herbiers did succeed in his objective of protecting the convoy, of the 250 merchantmen only 7 were captured." I had assumed it clear that "the balance " referred to the other 243 ships.)

• "... varied from 74 to 50 ..." vs "... variously rated for 56 to 80 guns ..." - Why the switch from high-low to low-high?

Ah. Good spot. Standarised.

• "... which made it difficult for the French navy to provide substantial quantities of supplies or to militarily support to French colonies" - Either 'or to militarily support French colonies' or, more preferably, 'or military support to French colonies'.

Oops. Sorted.

Cheers for that. I am off line for few days. I’ll get to it as soon as I’m back. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mr rnddude. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• I have one additional comment on second read-through. The lede and article body state 250 merchant ships/merchantmen, while the IB states '252 merchantmen and others'. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ah, that must be Content and Castor. Perhaps, for clarity, '250 merchantmen and 2 others'. Because I read it to mean 252 merchantmen and others rather than as 252 merchantmen and others. If the emphasis makes clear what I'm saying. Also, since the 2 others are part of the escort fleet, should they not be with the 8 ships of the line, i.e. 8 ships of the line and 2 others. Rather than as part of the merchant ships. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I take your point. I was trying to be concise for the infobox, but clearly at the expense of clarity. Now spelt out.

Thanks again Mr rnddude, good additional point. Addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Moving to support as all comments I had have been addressed. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: three supports - two of them non-MilHist - source and image reviews and ten days since nomination. Can I launch another? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose, @FAC coordinators: Two weeks in now? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't deliberately ignoring although, yes, two weeks in works better -- sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• (or 14 October 1747 in the Julian calendar then in use in Great Britain) - this could probably be in the note attached to the sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Done.

• British fleet - could we expand the link to both words? Seems EASTEREGGy to me to link British, as that could be many articles. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Good point, done.

• Basque Roads - could we mention this is in France? I know we say "French convoy", but that doesn't mean they travelled from France. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Added.

• Is "Sighted" a naval word in this context? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Not especially. It is a normal English word which seems to succinctly describe what happened. Would you prefer a rephrase?

• withdrawing from her gains in the Austrian Netherlands - I'm not sure what this means. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I have expanded to "withdrawing from her territorial gains in the Austrian Netherlands (modern Belgium)." Does that help?

Prose

• Not a prose thing, but the article title is annoying me a bit. Why is it "Second Battle", not "second battle", and why has it also got a date disambiguation? the other battles are all just "Battle of Cape Finisterre" with the year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

No idea. I never pay any attention to titles. I suspect the date is because there are battles of Cape Finisterre in 1747, 1761 and 1805. But none of them are second battles. I will change it to "Second battle of Cape Finisterre" as soon as this FAC closes.

• Is the "prelude" not a part of "background"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see it and it is not usual, although not unknown, so it is now.

• France, Spain and Prussia fighting Britain, Austria and the Dutch Republic. - these links seem reasonably weird. Why would "Spain" link to History of Spain (1700–1810) for instance? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Cus TRM wanted a contemporaneous link and I couldn't be bothered to argue WP:OVERLINK with them. Happy to delete them or change to Spain etc, which seems an insult to a reader's intelligence to me, or whatever is preferred. But The Rambling Man would need to agree.

• Is it not "French Navy" as a proper name? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• strategy of naval blockade - we can just drop the link down to Blockade. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

It's a navy which happens to belong to France. As in Gog's article.

• The captions are just stating who is in the portrait. Can we offer some more information, or at least mention it is a painting, when it was painted, or who did the painting? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Why?[!] I don't attribute each sentence of prose in line. That's what cites are for. Why should I do the equivalent for images. If a reader wants more detail they can click on the image. I could go with "Image of a painting of Rear-Admiral Edward Hawke", but a) it reads badly to me b) it seems pointless, a reader can see that c) it comes across as painfully pedantic.

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lee, thanks for looking this over. Your comments to date are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski Reminder, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Lee Vilenski and thanks for squeezing this in when things are so busy. Responses to your latest comments above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: ? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support. I would prefer better captions, though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Lee. Happy to discuss "better" captions. Once the WikiCup is over and we both have a bit more time perhaps we could debate this on the article's talk page? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• I would add (O.S.) to "14 October 1747" in the infobox.

Quite right. Done and linked.

• For location in the infobox, could we be a tiny bit more explicit, i.e. Off Cape Finisterre, near France/Spain?

I had wondered about that, but gone for the more summary style. Expanded.

• "A British fleet of" fleet should be in the pipe. Or else British should be linked to Kingdom of Great Britain.

Done.

• Likewise convoy in "French convoy". Or link French to "Kingdom of France" instead.

Gone for the former.

• "convoy of 250 merchant ships" infobox suggests 252 "merchantmen", so shouldn't we keep nomenclature and numbers consistent here?

Ah. Thank you for that. I forgot to subtract two from the total when I specified the two non-merchantmen! Fixed.

• "fourteen ships of the line commanded" ship of the line should be linked here, not second time round in the lead.

Done.

• "250 merchant ships, only seven " isn't MOSNUM keen on all numerals or or words for comparable values in close proximity?

It does, it does. Changed.

• "had strategic effects, isolating" not sure "had strategic effects" is helpful or adds anything here, could just delete that and make "isolating" into "isolated"...

Fair point. I suppose I need to either expand or cut. I have gone with your suggestion.

• I'm no expert, but by the map on the article, Austrian Netherlands appears to be more than just "modern Belgium".

Well, it is in places, and doesn't include some of modern Belgium elsewhere. And that's without getting into the whole Holy Roman Empire sovereignty issue. I can source the assertion in the article, but have changed to "approximately modern Belgium and Luxemburg".

• "France, Spain and Prussia fighting Britain, Austria and the Dutch Republic" if these (especially Prussia and Dutch Republic) have contemporaneous articles, I would link them, especially as you then link Bavaria (only).

Done, in so far as their are such articles.

• "the British navy" link this.

Done.

• "French navy" ditto.

Done.

• "In spring 1747 a " aren't seasons discouraged?

A regular query. IMO it is acceptable under MOS:SEASON for this sort of usage, but changed so as to duck the issue.

• "commanded by Jacques-Pierre de la Jonquière" other such individuals have their ranks noted (in the lead at least).

Added.

• "commanded by George Anson." ditto.

Added.

• "subordinate, Admiral Peter" you've linked rear and vice but not vanilla admiral, any reason?

Assuming that it would be generally understood and cognizant of MOS:OL.

• I would link scurvy, it's not exactly a commonplace complaint these days.

Point. Done.

• "So recently promoted..." maybe it's an artefact of a dodgy education, but I was told to avoid starting sentences with "So..."

I can't be held responsible for your dodgy education. My understanding is that this applies when "so" is used as a conjuntion, but not when used as an adverb, as here. Of course, my education was probably even dodgier.

• "sailed from Plymouth on" could link as many readers would not even believe that Plymouth (the original) was in southwest England.

The mind boggles. We should never have given them independence! Done.

• What is "aggressive ... signalling"?

Good question. I am trying to boil about a chapter and a half in the standard history into half a sentence. Unpacked a little, see what you think.

• "Admiralty" link.

Done.

• You use unusually thrice which is quite a POV statement. In each case, who said it was "unusual"?

I dislike doing too much in line attribution, so all removed.

• "Eight days after sailing" which side?

Good point. It also reads clumsily, so rephrased.

• "westernmost department of" why italic? Our own article doesn't use italics.

They do when using foreign words which aren't proper nouns. See MOS:FOREIGNITALIC.

• "varied from 50 to 74, only one being rated for more than 66 guns.[20]" you say this is "on the smaller side", but what was typical for a ship of the line? Can you footnote what we'd expect?

Not really. I can follow the sources by saying that they were a bit lightly gunned for capital ships of the time, but saying what was typical would be OR. (Or, at best, synthesis.)

• "Indiaman Content, the frigate Castor" Content is notable but Castor not? What's the difference?

I thought I had changed that. Castor now red linked.

• "permit ... permitting" repetitive, maybe switch one for "allow(ing)"?

Done.

• "By being able ... British were able..." repetitive prose.

Second usage rephrased.

• "each of them had its mobility restricted because of damage to their rigging" could you say "each one's mobility was restricted after damage to their rigging"?

I could. I have.

• "under Commodore George" link for Commodore (for consistent rank linking).

Done.

• "able to intercept many of them " any more specific details on these interceptions?

Sadly not. Which is a shame. But several thousand merchant ships were captured by each side during the war, many several times, so they get little mention.

• "went to the negotiating table " bit journalese.

Rephrased.

• "the Low Countries " link.

Done.

• "the French King proved" why not name him explicitly??

Added.

• "French Canada" link?

Done.

• "[note 4]:[20][22]" ugh, put [note 4] after the colon, I think our readers can handle that.

Done.

• "(flag, John Moore)" what does flag mean here?

Changed to "flagship" and linked.

That's all I have on a quick run through. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks TRM, that was just what the article needed. All of your comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure Commodore is linked first time,

It wasn't, it is now.

a query over French navy, this article doesn't capitalise it, but it redirects to the article which does.

I don't capitalise British navy either. I can't help how other articles capitalise things. I am relying on the MOS's "The central point is that Wikipedia does not capitalize something unless it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources."

I imagine there's a simple explanation for why you're opting to redirect?

MOS:NOPIPE.

Well, no, if you were to use Royal Navy, you wouldn't write Royal navy. That would be simply wrong. But as French Navy isn't really even the real name, it's fine. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Further points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, happy to support now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2021 [33].

---

Nonmetal

Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

​​​​​​​​​ This article is about the right half of a fundamental distinction in chemistry namely between metal and nonmetal chemical elements.

I referred the article for peer review after a less than stellar experience the first time round at FAC. The peer review experience far exceed my expectations, with seven reviewers participating over two months. The article benefited tremendously.

I feel it now meets all current FA expectations.

Along the way I learnt a lot more about the subject matter and the FAC process.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article looks much improved from the last time we were here. I do see some places that I'm not sure what source the information comes from, especially the table "Shared uses of nonmetallic elements". (t · c) buidhe 05:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you buidhe; I nearly missed your contribution. Sandbh (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• The sources for the table, "Shared uses of nonmetallic elements" are given in the accompanying text. Nick D raised some concerns about four tables appearing to contain unreferenced information and I'm addressing this in their section of this page. Do you have any other concerns about a lack of source information? Sandbh (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hello ​buidhe. I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to review my recent response to your comment above? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how the tables "Some cross-subclass physical properties", "Some cross-subclass chemical properties", and "Shared uses of nonmetallic elements" are verifiable. Some quick spot checks did not allow me to locate the info in the body (which is not necessarily a good idea as you want to avoid excessive duplication). For example, the row "cryogenics and refrigerants / H, He, N, O, F and Ne". If you're citing individual cells I would expect to see a source cited for every cell to make it more clear what source supports each info. Another option is to list references for each row in a separate column on the right, but that only works if the entire row is supported by only 2-3 sources. (t · c) buidhe 03:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Given the number of images and tables, there are some layout issues throughout. Suggest removing pull quotes and reducing number of images.
• Don't use fixed px size
• An_acrylic_cube_specially_prepared_for_element_collectors_containing_an_ampoule_filled_with_liquefied_xenon: does the uploader have the right to release this image?
• File:Graphite2.jpg: second source link is dead
• File:EN_values_of_chalcogens.png should include a source for the data presented
• File:Die_chemischen_elemente_cl.jpg: licensing tags given appear to conflict - to what does NC-ND apply?
• File:Kansas_Helium_Marker.jpg: what's the copyright status of the marker?
• File:Airbornelaserturret.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Argon.jpg
• File:Joseph_Wright_of_Derby_The_Alchemist.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Nikkimaria. Sandbh (talk) 06:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Removed/relocated some of the images. Pull out quotes kept since the early ones illustrate some important concepts, and the last one nicely fills a space vacated by an image.
• Removed all the fixed px sizes for images
• For the acrylic cube image, the uploader Rasiel Suarez is the General Manager at Luciteria Science, who make such cubes, so I'd say he has image release rights. He's uploaded several other images of elements in lucite cubes.

---

• Removed the dead link for the graphic image. There's a version of it in the Internet Archive, however it's identical to the image at the first link.
• Added an EN data source
• Removed File:Die_chemischen_elemente_cl.jpg given the licensing tags conflict

---

• Removed historical marker for helium discovery image
• Updated the source for the Airborne laser image

• Argon.jpg as well? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• There's a long discussion from the editor who took the image and uploaded it (2007) here. The licensing details, as granted by that editor, look fine. Since they are no longer active as a wp editor I’ve added a link to the 2007 FPC discussion. Will this suffice?

• Different image, different uploader - File:Argon.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• ​The Wayback Machine has a copy of the image, here. Clicking on the image, there is a comment under image properties saying, "Access: publicly available". Going back to the source page, here, William Viker says "FYI, I'd like you all to add a little copyright statement that makes it clear that theese pictures "belongs" to me. Add something like: PHOTO: William Viker william.viker@gmail.com smile: then it's all fine." Our image summary page, here, says the author is William Viker, and the permission field says, "Copyrighted image that an be used as long and attribution is provided". It all seems to be OK. Sandbh (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• That second link redirects to the homepage for me - is there another link? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

​Try this one: https://web.archive.org/web/20070311060741/http://my.opera.com/devblog/blog/2006/11/03/server-room-grand-opening Sandbh (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Added a {{PD-US-expired}} tag for the alchemist image

--- Sandbh (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi ​, Nikkimaria is this one ok now? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Still not thrilled with layout, but licensing is fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

​I looked at the layout of the Van Gogh FA, and made some adjustments to the nonmetal article layout. I also removed one quote box and two tables. Does that look better? Sandbh (talk) 05:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Materialscientist

• Why do you capitalize names (of elements, but not only) in tables? This does not seem necessary at all.
• Many references do have free text sources, such as PMC; I've added some, but many more can be added.
• Efforts should be spent to reduce the code length, which is much too long (>175 kilobytes), considering that there is not much text in the article.
• "The diamond allotrope of carbon is clearly nonmetallic, being translucent and having a relatively poor electrical conductivity" - electrical conductivity of diamond is not poor, it is hardly measurable at ambient conditions, unless diamond is heavily doped (e.g. with boron).
• "Under sufficiently high pressures, just over half of the nonmetallic elements that are semiconductors or insulators,[n 59] starting with phosphorus at 1.7 GPa, have been observed to form metallic allotropes" - WP:REDFLAG (very strong statement that should be properly cited or removed). This research area is very active, and many new metallic phases are being reported every year; "just over half" is probably plain wrong.
• "Since there are 118 known elements, as of September 2021, the nonmetals are outnumbered several times." - outnumbered by what? Ok, by something, you can fix that, yet this phrase is meaningless. Virtually any class of elements is outnumbered by all the elements of the Periodic Table. Materialscientist (talk) 14:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
• "iodine is known in amorphous form" - a useless comment, as all solid elements exhibit amorphous forms. What is so special about iodine in this regard? Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I mention iodine as the common perception, it seems to me from reading the literature, is that allotropy among the nonmetallic elements is confined to groups 13 to 16. Looking further, Te and Tang (2008, p. 194), as a secondary source, note that (I₂)_n chains occur in amorphous iodine, hence iodine too is a catenator. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, I see no answer to my point that all solid elements do occur in amorphous state, and that iodine is not exceptional in this regard. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. The section concerned is about allotropy among the nonmetallic elements. I mention a-I not for the fact that it is amorphous, but for the fact that it is an allotrope of I.

---

Thank you for your interest Materialscientist.

• Caps: I use caps since they are used in the table examples in the MOS, and elsewhere in wp.

  Negative, they are not used in the table examples, at least not in the form I mention (comma-separated caps). Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  I couldn't find any of these in the nonmetal article. Could you please provide an example? Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  See, e.g., the table titled "Some cross-subclass physical properties" that uses "Alkali, Alkaline earth, Lanthanide", etc., etc., ad nauseam, in this table and in the table below titled "Some cross-subclass chemical properties". Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Caps now removed; they were added by another editor so long ago, that I'd forgotten about them. Sandbh (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• PubMed Central etc: Done. Thank you. I checked this and was not able to find any more articles. I was surprised I could not find e.g. Zoroddu et al. 2019, "The essential metals for humans: a brief overview", Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, vol. 195. Sandbh (talk) 02:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Code length: the article runs to 10,655 words or about 16b per word. OTOH, the Barack Obama FA runs to 15,835 words and 379,000b = 24b per word. The metalloid FA article runs to 12,900 words and 245K or about 19.4b per word. The nonmetal article has 65 footnotes, 313 citations, and about 270 references that I expect would contribute to code length.

• The code length is associated with the five smaller tables and three larger tables. Sandbh (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Diamond: Done. The passage now says diamond is an extremely poor electrical conductor, as per an extra citation.

• Allotropy: The allotropy reference to "just over half" of the elements now reads, "at least half" and is supported by three citations, two from 2019 and 2020. I've added a footnote saying, "This is an active field with new metallic phases being reported every year".

  Sigh .. a dummy answer with dummy references: Yousuf 1998 is from 1998; Arveson et al. 2019 is a primary ref. on S; Elatresh & Bonev 2020 is a primary ref on O. So we end up with zero recent references to confirm the fact ..

Yousef 1998, a secondary source, confirms metallization for ten elements: Si, P, S, Cl, Ge, Se, Br, Te, I, Xe. Of the nonmetallic elements that are semiconductors or insulators, that leaves ten elements: H, Ge, B, N, O, F, Ne, Ar, Kr, and Rn. The leftover elements are the semimetals C, As, Sb. Yousef goes on to consider the question of whether whether all the other elements from the upper right-hand comer of the periodic table will transform into the metallic state within an accessible range of pressure. He specifically mentions H, B, C (diamond), N, Xe in this regard.

Yousef 1998 is a 23-year-old source, and I can only repeat my statement - high-P research is a highly active field. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

With respect, the metallization pressures cited by Yousef confirm that the elements concerned form metallic allotropes. That is the only binary consideration that this section is concerned with---has the nonmetal concerned being metallized under pressure or hasn't it. In this context, it does not matter that he is a 23-year old source. High-P research is for sure a highly active field. That said, to my knowledge of the literature, none of the other nonmetals I mentioned have yet been metallized.

@Sandbh: Hmm – but metallization pressure gives cited metallization pressures for all nonmetals but F and Rn? And seems like Sb metallises at high pressure too, according to this article. Double sharp (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Double sharp: Thank you Double sharp. The extra metallization pressures in the metallization pressure article, as I recall, are theoretically predicted rather the experimentally confirmed. That is the case too, for the Sb article link you provided. While it does refer to some experimental studies, the conclusion notes metallization has not yet been achieved. Sandbh (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Arveson et al. 2019, a secondary source confirming the metallization of sulfur, is thus not required and I've removed that cite, thank you.

Metallization for H has not yet been confirmed as I understand it.

There are no reports that I could find for the experimental metallization of B, N, F, Ne, Ar, Kr, or Rn.

With all due respect, see WP:NOR - personal research is not the way to write a WP:FA. For example, see this report on nitrogen [34]. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by personal research. The section in question is about high-P metallization of nonmetallic elements. To compile it I conducted a literature search. Yousef, as a secondary source, confirmed metallization for quite a few of these elements. Metallization for O was confirmed Elatresh & Bonev, a more recent source. Both sources are cited in the article.

The Nature article reports the metallization of nitrogen under pressure and high temperature (ca. 2500 K) whereas the nonmetal article refers to metallization under pressure, rather under thermobaric conditions. The Nature article includes a phase diagram for nitrogen showing that metallization is apparently not possible in the vicinity of room temperature.

Recently synthesized "black" N, which is apparently transparent, has a reported band gap of ca. 2.2 eV.

Elatresh & Bonev 2020 is a secondary source in the sense that they cite the experimental metallization of O as reported by (1) Y. Akahama, H. Kawamura, D. Ha¨usermann, M. Hanfland and O. Shimomura, Phys. Rev. Lett., 1995, 74, 4690–4693; and (2) S. Desgreniers, Y. K. Vohra and A. L. Ruoff, J. Chem. Phys., 1990, 94, 1117–1122.

Yet it covers only one element, while we're discussing a blanket statement about an element group. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

The section of the article discusses allotropy among the nonmetallic elements. Yousef covers quite a few of these, but does not mention oxygen. Elatresh & Bonev, as a later secondary source, do.

Hence just over half the nonmetallic elements that are semiconductors or insulators, have been metallized. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Actually, the issue lies deeper - you write on a general subject, yet excessively use primary sources. Do use (recent) books instead.

  Further on refs. Why "Allotropes[184]" ? Ref. [184] is "Addison 1964, passim" - it is 60 years old and has no page number. Allotropy has been actively studied after 1960s. Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I cite Addison as a unique, as far as I know, monograph on the allotropy of the elements. There is no page number as he discusses allotropy throughout his book. Sandbh (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

This excuse had been used on this Wiki for decades, and it never addressed the actual issue: the reader is not expected to read the whole book. Materialscientist (talk) 09:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. I've added a page range for Addison, wherein he surveys the incidence of allotropy across the PT; and a more recent citation to Wulfsberg wherein he discusses allotropy in the p-block. Sandbh (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• No. of nonmetals: Done. Mention of the number of nonmetals now reads, "The nonmetals are outnumbered by the metals several times." Since distinguishing between metals and nonmetals is a fundamental aspect of chemistry, I feel this is OK as a contextual statement. Sandbh (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hello ​​ Materialscientist. I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to further review my recent responses to your comments above? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose by Nick-D

The sourcing remains deficient for a FA:

• There is an unaddressed 'citation needed tag'
• Some other text in the body of the article and some of the end notes is not cited. This includes at least two paragraphs with no references at all.
• The four tables appear to have large quantities of unreferenced material.

I'd also add that 65 end notes is excessive: in general, material in articles should be significant enough to be included in the body of the article, or not significant enough to be included at all. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Nick-D.

• Citation needed tag: Done. replaced with a citation, and associated ce. Sandbh (talk) 12:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Uncited text (main body): Done. All paragraphs now have citations. Sandbh (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Uncited (endnotes): Done. There is now one footnote without a cite:

• In the physical properties comparative table, Crystal structure row, the endnote says, "At point of solidification for bromine, mercury and gases", which clarifies that fluid elements need to be frozen, in order to discern their crystal structures. I feel this does not need a cite.

• Too many endnotes: Done. I generally use endnotes to elaborate items which would otherwise seem to make the main body text too detailed for the general reader. At the same time, the footnotes may appeal to the specialist reader. For a technical subject, I feel this is a good way of addressing FA criterion 1c, "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Still, there may be scope to reduce the number of footnotes and I'll look at that too. Sandbh (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• 27 of the endnotes are in tables where the end notes would otherwise take up too much room. I propose not to do anything further about these.
• Endnotes in the main text are now 37. I have yet to look more closely at these. Sandbh (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• There are now 33 endnotes in tables, and 32 in the main text. For a technical article such as this I feel the number of main text notes is OK. I could incorporate some of them into the main body of the article however I feel this would reduce readability, for no real gain. Accordingly, I've changed my status marker for this item from pending to done. Sandbh (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Uncited (four tables). Done. All information in tables is now sourced. Sandbh (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello ​​Nick-D. I was wondering if you've had the opportunity to review my recent responses to your comments above? Thank you.

Honing the concept

To enhance the flow of the article, I've added a ca. 200 word subsection by this name, between "2 Origin and use of term"; and "3 Physical properties". It acts as a bridge between the two sections somewhat like the noble gases bridge the halogens and the alkali metals. Sandbh (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Given the large number of uncited statements, a number of other basic issues and the outstanding oppose, this does not yet seem to be ready for FAC. I am archiving the nomination for the article to be further worked on. Hopefully we will see it here again, although the usual two week hiatus will apply.

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2021 [35].

---

2013 FA Cup Final

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, arguably the most notable FA Cup final the 21st century. Manchester City had begun their meteoric rise to the outfit were currently accustomed seeing picking up silverware on multiple occasions every single season, while Wigan were exiting the Premier League after a poor season. And I won't spoil the punchline, but I bet you can guess what happened in this match... As ever, thanks to anyone who has constructive comments to add and for any time spent taking a look, I'll address all such issues as soon as I possibly can. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Image review removed one image for sandwiching, the rest of them look OK for licensing. (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

Not a full review, but I looked through the article (and enjoyed it), and have one comment to pass along. The paragraph in the "Post-match" section starting "Sporting Life described the win as..." is a bit repetitive in structure. It's this sort of thing that prompted me to write WP:RECEPTION, and I wonder if the same approach could be taken here. Could we restructure this to put similar comments together, in order to vary the rhythm and sentence structure? E.g. something like this for the first sentence (and I've elided the names of the writers since I think unless the writers themselves are important journalists it's the source that the reader cares about):

Sporting Life described the win as the "biggest FA Cup final shock" since Wimbledon's defeat of Liverpool in the 1988 final. Other commentators went further, with Fox Sports, BBC Sport and FourFourTwo all saying it was one of the biggest shocks in competition's history, and bookmaker William Hill agreeing.

That's a bit abbreviated, perhaps, and I'm fine with adding back in whatever you think is important; the main thing is that multiple major commentators said it was a huge upset and that's what we should tell the reader. Is FourFourTwo important enough to even name? (I've been gone from the UK for decades so I really don't know.) If you've read enough newspaper articles to support this could we expand the introductory comment to "most commentators" described it as one of the biggest shocks..."? That would be ideal. I had a look on newspapers.com; I don't have the Publishers' Extra subscription so I can't access the recent papers but it was pretty clear from the snippets that it was described in those terms in multiple US papers too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike, thanks for your comment. You are almost certainly spot on that it's a bit "blah said bleh" etc, so I'll work it up a little based on your suggestion. Cheers for taking a look. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I've taken a stab at reducing the X said Y, Z remarked A, etc etc. Let me know if it's more in keeping with your thinking. Of course, happy to take onboard further suggestions (or even happier for you to tweak it yourself!) Thanks again for the comment. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

That looks better to me. I will try to find time to reread the whole article with a critical eye and see if I can support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike thanks, very kind of you, I appreciate your time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I wondered if you had any time to take a look? It's been thoroughly reviewed now by a raft of different editors, but I'd always appreciate another viewpoint? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think I’ll be doing a complete review — it does look like you have a full set of reviewers already, so I hope you’re all set. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Amakuru

Background

• The only issue I can think of is that it might be neater to have a link to 2012–13 FA Cup in the background section, rather than not mentioning the year's competition until Route to the final

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Route to the final - Man City

• "in the third round where they were drawn" -> "in the third round, in which they were drawn"
• "Costel Pantilimon then denied Fernando Forestieri a goal-scoring opportunity for Watford" - slightly confusing wording. "Denied him an opportunity" sounds like might have had an opportunity but never got to have it. Whereas presumably in fact he did have an opportunity, just that the goal being denied by Pantilimon.
• "Manchester City academy player Rony Lopes" - Consider linking to Manchester City F.C. EDS and Academy
• "Tevez's pass to him allowed him to take the ball past Leeds United goalkeeper" - the "to him" is a bit redundant; also slightly confusing - can a pass really allow you to take the ball past the keeper? Seems more likely that it's up to your own skill whether you can do that or not, as long as the pass actually reaches you
• "after eleven minutes after David Silva's volley" - repetition of "after"
• "In the semi-final, City faced defending" - probably should be "Manchester City" for consistency
• "faced defending FA Cup champions Chelsea at Wembley, a neutral venue, for the fourth time in the FA Cup" - ambiguous: is it the fourth time they played Chelsea at Wembley, or the fourth time in the Cup overall?

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Route to the final - Wigan

• "in the third round where they faced" - still prefer "in which" probably
• "dominated the second half" - dominated it how? Sounds like more of an opinion than an objective fact. Might want to say they had more possession or more shots on goal or whatever.
• "strike from outside the Wigan Athletic penalty area" - link
• "in the area" - should probably be "penalty area"; although also need to consider whether this is too soon after the previous penalty area
• "ensured the tie would need to be settled in a replay" - this use of tie might confuse people who don't know about it, especially as it can also mean a draw
• "second appearance in the FA Cup Fifth round" - round numbers aren't usually capitalised in this article
• "founding of the club in 1932" - up to you, but you could consider dropping the year since it was already mentioned earlier
• "4–1 win for Wigan Athletic. Wigan Athletic's quarter-final opponents" - repetition of "Wigan Athletic"
• "who they faced at Goodison Park" - should be "whom"
• "McManaman then doubled the lead after a mistake from Phil Neville allowed him to take the ball past Everton's goalkeeper Ján Mucha before shooting" - one of those after ... before constructs, which end up sounding a bit confusing. I might reword to something like "McManaman then doubled the lead when a mistake by Phil Neville allowed him to take the ball past Everton's goalkeeper Ján Mucha and shoot"
• "The win ensured Wigan would play in the first" - after a string of Wigan Atheletics, we now have a Wigan. Either make them all the same, or consider dropping the Athletic in all but the first mention.
• "saw them faced Championship side Millwall" - "face"

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

More to come!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Amakuru can't wait, thanks for the comments thus far. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Pre-match

• Any injuries or anything?
• "after failing to lead Manchester City to a defence" - probably "he failed" instead of "failing"
• "Mancini suggested" - not sure it's a suggestion, maybe just "Mancini said"

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Summary

• "the ball finding Touré: his shot was pushed away by Joel" - not sure a colon is the correct punctuation here. Suggest either a semicolon, or perhaps a new sentence.
• "8 yards (7.3 m)" - too much precision

", his shot went wide of the Manchester City post" - again, a new sentence or semicolon instead of a comma would seem preferable

• "Manchester City's Matija Nastasić's long-range strike" - the double possessive here sounds slightly awkward. Maybe reword.
• "wayward" - a bit journalese
• "He passed to McManaman who was fouled by Zabaleta around 30 yards (27 m) from the Manchester City goal who was sent off after receiving a second booking" - the double "who" in this sentence makes it a bit confusing. Also I'd suggest the nugget about it being the third sending off should be here rather than in post-match.

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Post-match

• "Wigan Athletic also were awarded" - maybe "were also"?
• "succumbing to a 4–1 defeat" - a bit journalese as well
• "Wigan Athletic defeated Manchester City" - adding an "again" in here might be useful
• Also indicate what happened to them afterwards; I understand they lost to Arsenal in the semi and consequently failed to defend their trophy

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• No issues that I can see.

That completes the review. Looks good other than the above minor points. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Amukuru all done I think, many thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff, thanks for that. (I didn't see the ping because of a typo). Happy to support. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Edwininlondon

I remember watching this. Some comments:

• Manchester City had won both league games --> which league where they both playing in?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• followed by a 1–0 win the following --> not particularly elegant

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• late winning goal --> don't think we need winning

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wigan Athletic's leading scorer during the regular season --> this kind of assumes that the reader knows that the final is played after the season ends. Maybe that should be made explicit somewhere

  Added some "scheduling" details along with league positions going in. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• home against Watford --> which league were they in?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• the lead with a free kick --> from a free kick?

  Either works. And I want to avoid repetition of "from". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• progressed to a fourth round match at the Britannia Stadium where they played Stoke City --> this makes it look like it is just coincidence that Stoke City play their home games at that venue

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• played Stoke City --> which league are they in?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• There they faced --> a bit odd to start the paragraph with There

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Chelsea's goalkeeper César Azpilicueta --> I don't think he's a goallie

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Macclesfield's appeal for a penalty late in the match were turned down --> was or appeals?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wigan Athletic's quarter-final opponents were --> elsewhere you call it 6th round

  It's interchangeable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• four minutes in the first half to secure victory --> there are quite a few "secure"s which is ok, but these 2 are a bit too close together for my liking

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• With twelve minutes of the match remaining, Wigan Athletic broke with --> repetition of with

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wigan Athletic won the match 2–0 and progressed to the first FA Cup final in the club's history --> I can see the lure of this record, but at the same time it is inevitable giving the uniqueness of reaching the semis

  Yes, but it was a record at the time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• prior to kick-off --> we need consistency: either kick-off or kick off, but not both

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wigan Athletic adopted a 3–4–3 formation while Manchester City played as a 4–2–3–1. --> this is a bit in an odd place. It would fit better at the end of the previous paragraph

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• finding Touré whose was pushed away by Joel --> something is missing

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• and bookmaker William Hill agreeing --> I don't think a bookmaker's views have a place in an encyclopedia

  I disagree. Bookmakers are a very good source for this kind of thing. And in any case, it's simply a method of reinforcing the general vibe around the surprise result. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• what happened to Martínez? Especialy since they got relegated

  Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• On 20 May, Wigan had an open-top bus tour of the town to celebrate the FA Cup victory --> a bit out of place. Should be closer to all the Wigan related stuff

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is there anything about audience numbers for the broadcasts? In UK and globally?

  I haven't found anything in any reliable sources for this. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: was the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition --> is this backed up anywhere in the body of the article?

  Remnant of previous version. Got rid. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: In the United Kingdom, the match was televised by ITV and ESPN. --> I don't think this is important enough to make it in the lead, and definitely not the first paragraph.

  Ok, gone. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: As such, Wigan Athletic --> I don't see why we need the As such. The previous sentence has nothing to do with Wigan going to the Europa league, does it? Or may be As such is not trying to connec those 2 sentences? In any case, should Wigan's journey into Europe not be mentioned first, as winners?

  Deleted as such. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: becoming the first team to win the Cup and succumb to relegation in the same season --> that's not exactly what the body says. The body says from the highest tier

  Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Lead: should the man of the match not be mentioned?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:24, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me. Apart from these minor points, all looks good to me in terms of prose and comprehensiveness. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Edwininlondon thank you Edwin, I really appreciate the comments. I'll try to get to them in the next day or so. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Edwininlondon okay, I've addressed almost all of these points, just the viewing figures which I can't find so I'd appreciate your thoughts on that. Great review, thanks so much. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

9.4 million in the UK according to The Times [36]. I can't see anything in a reliable source about global audience numbers, there is only the Express saying it's half a billion, a record [37]. I'll have a better look later. I noticed in The Times they mention an issue about kick off time, which I think needs to go somewhere in the article. It was even debated in parliament! [38]. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Edwininlondon I added some more detail about that in the pre-match section before the kick-off details, and added the peak BBC figures in the post-match section. Anything else? Cheers again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

All fine. I Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Placeholder Support from Cas Liber

I'll get back to this soon.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Right, I made this edit only. Prose and comprehensiveness look okay to me though I am interested to see how Edwininlondon feels after review finished as he's asked some questions I'd have asked....but a thumbs up from me pending....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber thanks, I've addressed Edwin's point all bar the viewing figures which I can't find reliably sourced. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Casliber get the ping right.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Casliber hi, just a courtesy ping to let you know that Edwin has completed his review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed

Formatting

• The Daily Telegraph is inconsistent with the url-access=subscription
• Ref 43 missing the 11v11 like the others
• Authors (there's two) missing from ref 44
• Ref 47 seems to be the only instance of Phil McNulty that is unlinked
• ref 47 missing link and is formatted differently ("BBC Sport (British Broadcasting Corporation")
• Ref 50, The Independent could use a url-access=limited like the other ref from The Independent
• Ref 66 should probably italicize Forbes
• ref 67 needs a work/publisher or something
• Ref 69 should presumably include the author (Julien Desbuissons).

Reliability

• Seems fine overall

Verifiability

• No issues Aza24 (talk) 06:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 many thanks, I've addressed all your comments I believe. Please let me know if there's anything else required. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Oldelpaso

• This is an underdog story, but until the post-match section we only get a limited sense of this. While adding emphasis while maintaining encyclopedic tone isn't always easy, we have things like City having won the last 7 meetings between the sides without conceding a goal, Wigan were 40 points behind in the league[39].

  Not strictly true, we do have "with Wigan Athletic in eighteenth place in the league and Manchester City in second position" in the Background section, but I agree that can be bulked up with the factoids you've mentioned here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've added those factoids now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Worth mentioning Wigan reached the League Cup final in 2006. Maybe that they became 43rd winners?

  I'm not seeing the relevance of that to this FA Cup final 7 years later? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• For the earlier rounds, some more about the degree of squad rotation may be helpful. Wigan were battling relegation, at what point did the cup become a priority? Likewise City harboured title hopes at the time of the early rounds.

  I can add a little more but I'm not able to project "at what point did the cup become a priority", that's down to Martinez and his decision-making toward the end of the season. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• City rested a number of players in the preceding league game [40]

  That doesn't seem to be a reliable source, perhaps we can find a better one? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:00, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've added that eight players were restored to the starting lineup, with reliable sourcing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Chronology of Post-match a bit bumpy. Wigan playing in Europe the following season is mentioned before events two days after the game. Plus Wigan were in the Europa irrespective of the result of the final.

  I've rejigged this. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:01, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wigan were a third tier club when the 2018 meeting occurred. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Oldelpaso I've made an attempt at most of your points. Let me know if you can help with the "squad rotation" and potential OR thing about when Wigan starting taking things seriously in the cup? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from JennyOz

Hi TRM, a few nitpicks...

• lede: Watson outjumped Jack Rodwell - Watson name and link

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• the following season's Champions League by - refine wlink to actual season's article?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Jamie Ashdown and socring after - typo scoring

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• There are a few Wigans without "Athletic", if it matters? (It was Wigan's first FA Cup final, Wigan had gained, Wigan penalty area was too high, Wigan had an open-top, Wigan had gained a Europa, Wigan's manager Martínez)

  Done, I think! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• In lineup image why does Toure have his first name initial?

  So as not to be confused with Kolo Toure. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wigan Athletic's quarter-final opponents were - maybe add "(6th round)" to match table

  Just made it QF throughout, this had been noted previously, so it's obviously confusing! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• reported in The Daily Telegraph that Roberto Mancini's job - insert manager

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• potentially not getting home till 2{{nbsp}a.m. - fix bracket

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Joel Robles - you use name Joel, his article uses Robles (as does the lineup image)

  Gone with Robles. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• dribbled past both Silva and Clichy - Clichy not yet introduced or linked

  Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• BBC... but did concede to play the fixture as the last game of the domestic season - I can't read all of the archived ref, what does this mean? BBC "play the fixture"? Is that them broadcasting it? Was it not live?

  What I meant was they agreed to scheduling the final at the end of the season. I've tried a re-words. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• biggest shocks in competition's history - the competition's?

  The FA Cup is a competition, no? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I was suggesting inserting "the":) JennyOz (talk) 13:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, I should learn to read! Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• the tenth biggest "surprise" result - hyphen tenth-biggest?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Milner for Nasri subbed in 54th or 55th minute ie prose conflicts with lineup image

  Made consistent. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Champions League v Championship - I got confused, maybe first mention of each could include UEFA and EFL?

  Included EFL. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• lineup image - Tevez has diacritic but not elsewhere

  Ah well. I can't change the image. See Talk:Carlos_Tevez#Tévez_vs_Tevez The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 13 Socccerbase - typo triple ccc

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 14 Socccerbase - ditto

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• ref 30 Chris Bascombe - authorlink

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That's it for me, regards, JennyOz (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

JennyOz all done bar Tevez. Cheers for your comments! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

JennyOz adjusted the one I mis-read/mis-understood!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

My bad, all good, happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: four supports, passed image and source review, can I launch another? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC) @FAC coordinators: any word? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I am supposed to be staying away from WikiCup competitors, but this looks pretty uncontroversial, so go for it. And if Cwmhiraeth strings me up, so be it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Just FTR, the original ping isn't in my notifications list, only this latest. Anyway no prob from my side either... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi TRM, for once not a query about how the player nationalities were sourced but where the players' numbers came from -- apologies if I missed the obvious... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose Added explicit sources for that season's squad numbers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Great, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 December 2021 [41].

---

Mu'awiya I

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) and AhmadLX (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Mu'awiya I, the founder and first caliph of the Umayyad Caliphate. Though his family led the opposition to the Islamic prophet Muhammad, he became the Prophet's scribe after the conquest of Mecca. He was sent as a commander in the Syrian conquest two years later and gradually governed that conquered region, where he secured a strong power base among its Arab tribes and mostly Christian bureaucracy. He defeated the 4th caliph, Muhammad's cousin and son-in-law Ali in the first Muslim civil war, bringing the caliphate under his rule. Considered controversial in Muslim tradition for seizing power, being less religiously devoted than his predecessors and establishing dynastic rule, unprecedented in Muslim politics, he is also admired for his competence, leadership skills and mild rule. Al Ameer (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up all maps
• Some of the maps present a concern wrt MOS:COLOUR. Additionally for File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg it is unclear even for a non-colour-blind person which portion of the map is being referred to as "red" in the caption.

• I defined in text the areas shaded in particular colors in the captions on all the map images; also re-colored the expansion map (new upload called File:Age of the Caliphs-recolored.png for clarity).

• File:Seal_of_Muawiya_dismissing_Abd_Allah_ibn_Amir_as_governor.jpg: where is the CC0 claim coming from?

• This issue is outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the inscriptions are three-dimensional, I'm not sure if PD old applies for such a recent photo. FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg: source link is dead

• Added archive links. Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Greek_Muawiya_inscription_of_Hammat_Gader,_663_AD.png: what is the copyright status of the photo? Ditto File:Lead_seal_of_Mu'awiya's_dismissal_of_Ibn_Amir,_ca._664.png

• This issue is outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Arab-Sasanian_coin_of_Muawiyah_I,_struck_at_the_Fasa_mint_in_Darabjird_(Fars).jpg needs tag(s) for the status of the coin itself

• Tag for US status of the coin still needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Added US tag. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Statue_de_Okba_ibn_Nafi_al_Fihri_en_Algérie.jpg: where specifically is this statue located?

• I do not know. I could only assume somewhere in Tunisia, possibly Kairouan. Removed for now. Will try to find out from author in meantime but not hopeful. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• The filename would indicate it's in Algeria? FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't I feel like a dummy. Thanks for pointing that out FunkMonk. Modified the description in the file and restored the image to the article now that we have the location. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• File:Tomb_of_Caliph_Muawiya_Bin_Abi_Sufyan.jpg will need a tag for the original work, and where is the CC claim for the photo coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• I removed this image for now as it is not clear where the CC claim is from. The source link does not indicate that the author has given permission to use the image. I may try contacting either the uploader or the author to get clarity on this. Al Ameer (talk) 21:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi @LouisAragon:@FunkMonk:. Would you guys be able to help me with the licensing on these?

1) File:Seal_of_Muawiya_dismissing_Abd_Allah_ibn_Amir_as_governor.jpg

2) File:Greek_Muawiya_inscription_of_Hammat_Gader,_663_AD.png

3) File:Arab-Sasanian_coin_of_Muawiyah_I,_struck_at_the_Fasa_mint_in_Darabjird_(Fars).jpg? Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

The last just needs an additional PD old tag for the artwork I believe (as the others have). But as for the first two, as they're not entirely two-dimensional works, I'm not sure they can be assumed to be PD, as the photographer would still hold copyright (unless they specifically released the photos under free licences themselves). FunkMonk (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks FunkMonk. Not good news though, probably will have to remove them (the seal and the Greek inscription) if that's the case. Are seals not considered two-dimensional works like coins—and if so, would that make a difference here? --Al Ameer (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, perhaps Nikki has some input. Are there any licences listed on the website they are from? mFunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Coins are considered 3D (see commons:COM:COIN); I would expect we treat seals the same way. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately; I think plainish inscriptions are ok though. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikki;@FunkMonk:@Johnbod: Regarding the seals: File:Lead seal of Mu'awiya's dismissal of Ibn Amir, ca. 664.png comes from SixBid, whose [terms of use] appear to prohibit using the content for our purposes. I have removed the image from the article. As for File:Seal of Muawiya dismissing Abd Allah ibn Amir as governor.jpg, the terms of use of NumisBids indicate they post the pictures of the objects with permission, the "copyright, where applicable, remains with the original holders". I cannot determine any licenses from their site, not sure where to look other than the terms of use link. If this means that, short of the discovery of any suitable licensing, neither of these seals could be used here per PD-Old/PD-US, is there a decent chance at a Fair Use argument due to the rarity of the two seals, which very much contain the same inscriptions? There are no documents out there that we know of where Mu'awiya's name is inscribed in Arabic. There are a few coins from a Persian mint where his name is inscribed in Middle Persian and then the inscription from the Galilee where his name is written in Greek. Besides the uniqueness from that perspective, the seal is the sole epigraphic corroboration of the much later Arabic historical tradition that Mu'awiya established a government department for correspondence/chancellery (all other evidence was likely destroyed or otherwise lost following the demise of Umayyad rule). The seal is also the sole epigraphic evidence of Mu'awiya's dismissal of his governor from Basra, which the much later Arabic literary history records. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It's unlikely to meet WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could take a picture of the seal and release under a free license. (t · c) buidhe 22:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I have removed both the seal images. Al Ameer (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the Greek inscription, would it be considered "plainish"? This inscription is also a unique document in that it is remarkably the only known epigraphic proof of Mu'awiya's rule in the Levant, where his 40-year rule as governor and then caliph was based. It is also the only known Greek inscription of his name. Al Ameer (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Buidhe, is this a pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  This isn't my image review actually, it's Nikkimaria's. (t · c) buidhe 14:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  File:Greek_Muawiya_inscription_of_Hammat_Gader,_663_AD.png remains outstanding. Nikkimaria (talk)

[[User:Al Ameer son|Al Ameer] ? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Was waiting to see if the inscription would be considered 'plain' enough to qualify as a two-dimensional work. If not, was going to attempt a Fair Use approach. In the meantime, while these matters are decided, I have removed the image from the article. Al Ameer (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Iazyges

Reviewed the article at GAN recently, will support once the issue with the ref "Ali 1974, p. 82" not having a bibliography is fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:18, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Issue has been fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Iazyges: Thank you for supporting and again for your efforts during the GAR. Al Ameer (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• Nice to see this here, marking my spot for now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Would it make sense to mention that he was pagan or what exact beliefs he had before becoming a Muslim? I can imagine many readers would have no idea what Arab religion was before Islam.

• Yes, I think it would be best to note that his tribe was polytheistic for context. Will add. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link Muslim and Arabia, Mesopotamia, Arab, Byzantine, other such terms in article body?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The link to Arabia should thereafter be removed form the later "Moreover, the focus of Arabian tribal".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "against Byzantine Cilicia and proceeded to Euchaita, deep in Byzantine territory.[17] In 644, he led a foray against Amorium in Byzantine Anatolia." The first areas are also in Anatolia, so perhaps mention it earlier?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "principal Arab allies, the Ghassanids," Perhaps add they were Christian?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Although Syria's rural, Aramaic Christian" You could say "Aramaic-speaking" to avoid the contentious ethnic issue.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the historian J. W. Jandora" Full name like the others?

  Name is John W. Jandora, added full name in bibliography. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "According to the historian J. W. Jandora, "Mu'awiya was thus confronted with a population problem"." Does it need to be a quote or can't it be paraphrased?

• Decided to remove altogether unless you think otherwise. It would be a bit complicated to paraphrase because I would need to get creative on what Jandora means when he says "population problem". My understanding is that in Syria's critical urban centers, Mu'awiya had to contend with either a depleted and/or outright hostile population. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, in that case, I think it could stay, but up to you. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "to pay a tribute equal to that which they paid the Byzantines" But did they have to pay both? Or should it be "which they had paid the Byzantines"?

• Revised to "had paid". Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and they bested the Iraqis" Is that term appropriate in this context? I can understand Syrians, as the region was called that, but was Iraq in the modern sense used then? And in any case, didn't Ali and his army come from Arabia? How do the sources distinguish the factions?

• In this context, Iraq is also the appropriate term and was used by the early Muslim sources to refer to the region that is southern/central modern Iraq. The sources actually identify the sides as Syrians and Iraqis, something of a theme of rivalry between the two geopolitically important regions throughout the early Muslim period. As for Arabians, the "Syrians" in this case were also Arabians, some being tribes established in Syria in centuries prior and others having arrived with the conquest armies. Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "greeted Mu'awiya as amir al-mu'minin" Could need explanation.

• Clarified that this was in effect a signal of their recognition of Mu'awiya as caliph. --Al Ameer (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "was aborted as a result of Ali's assassination by a Kharijite" I believe there is an article about this that could be linked, Assassination of Ali.

• Linked.

• "This year is considered by the traditional Muslim sources as "the year of unity" What does "traditional Muslim" mean? I doubt Shias agree with this, so specifically Sunni?

• Maybe, but I am not sure "traditional Muslim sources" should be synonymous with Sunni sources. @AhmadLX: Thoughts on this? --Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the historians were not strictly "Sunni"/"Shia" in a sense scholars of hadith and jurisprudence were. It was more like some being pro-Alid historians and some not so pro-Alid historians. I remember seeing a source expressly saying that "Muslim tradition calls the year, year of jam'a", but at the moment I can't find it. The sources cited in the article name Tabari and Khalifa. Now, both of these historians were in the category of not so pro-Alids. I think, one can just add in the article "considered by some of the traditional Muslim sources..." for now. When a source listing other primary sources or expressly calling it a year of unity is found, we can change it back. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That could work, I think it's important to note it was not the universal opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Generally not a fan of the word "some", but have modified accordingly for now. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the caliph's name is preceded by a cross" Any images of these coins to show?

• None unfortunately. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the spring in Jeddah [sic]" What does the sic denote?

• Fixed. The source used the less common spelling of "Juddah". Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In the Yamama in central Arabia" You could add "region".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "During the reign of Mu'awia" Missing y from the name.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "According to Hinds, in addition to Yazid's nobility, age and sound judgement, "most important of all was the fact that he represented a continuation of the link with Kalb and so a continuation of the Kalb-led [tribal] confederacy on which Sufyanid power ultimately rested" Does this need to be a quote?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya's grave was a visitation site as late as the 10th century." Is its location known today?

• Not really. There's a tomb supposedly containing his tomb in the Bab al-Saghir cemetery but this is a relatively recent "rediscovery". His "real" tomb may be hidden somewhere in Damascus. As of the 19th century, his tomb in the cemetery had disappeared. I will check to see if there are sources that mention its existence later than the 10th century. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• You are somewhat inconsistent in whether you present historians by occupation or not.

• Please let me know if this has been addressed now. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks better. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya died of an illness" Any further details or context? How long was he sick, etc?

• No details here. Many of his Umayyad successors died from illnesses that a modern source proposes were recurrences of the plague of Amwas, but Mu'awiya is not included among them.

• "after the decade-long civil war" You could add "second".

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Caliphate" is sometimes capitalised, sometimes not.

• Caliphate has been capitalized when referencing the state/empire, lowercased when referencing the office of the caliph. Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• "This has led some modern historians" Could they be named?

@AhmadLX: Does Hoyland mention any specific historians? If not, I will modify the wording. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, added names in a footnote. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya and the Umayyads are given the title of malik (king) instead of khalifa (caliph), though the Abbasids are recognized as caliphs." Specify if this is by the aforementioned writer.

• Attributed to the Islamic tradition. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "A Syriac writer notes that he did not wear a crown like the traditional kings" and "The Maronite Chronicles also maintain that Mu'awiya "did not wear a crown like other kings in the world"", seems to be the same info, is one redundant?

• Possibly; removed just in case. @AhmadLX: Objection? --Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Certainly not;) AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Afterward, Mu'awiya became one of Muhammad's scribes." This doesn't seem to be specifically stated in the article body until way down under Assessment?

• It is mentioned in the Origins and early life section "Mu'awiya was made one of his katibs (scribes)". Al Ameer (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, must have overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• "condemned Mu'awiya and other Umayyad caliphs" The article body doesn't seem to clearly state he was Umayyad until this point far down?

• There are earlier mentions of him being an Umayyad family member, but I added a sentence in the "Early military career ..." section about him and the Umayyad caliphs, as well as their differentiation from the first four caliphs who are considered the "Rashidun". Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "considerable admiration for Mu'awiya in the sources" Add "contemporary"?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 18:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Rashidun" don't seem to be mentioned by this name outside the intro.

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Only a few unanswered points left before I can support. FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• @FunkMonk: Please let me know if there is any other point that needs to be addressed. Thank you for your patience. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, now Caliphate ("to shore up support for the Caliphate") seems to be a duplink of Rashidun Caliphate, I think you could just make it a link to the general Caliphate article? FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently the preceding "caliph" in this section links to Caliphate, so I will leave "Caliphate" un-linked, unless you think otherwise. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support - everything looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Borsoka

• ...a prominent Meccan merchant who often led trade caravans... Is "often" necessary?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ... preeminent leader... Is the adjective necessary?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...during the early stages of its conflict with the Islamic prophet... Perhaps "the Quraysh's/Banu Abd Shams' conflict"?

• Went with "Quraysh's" Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...Mu'awiya and his father may have reached an understanding with Muhammad... WP:WEASEL. You may want to say that they reached an agreement as it is demonstrated by the marriage of his sister to Muhammad in 629.

• Had to keep "may" as the source does not make it certain or even likely.

• If the source does not make it likely, why do we need to mention it? What is sure that Muhammad wed his sister in 629. I assume they must have reached an understanding before the marriage. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• I revised this passage. I hope it is clearer and less weasely now. Let me know. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...with his tribesmen... Perhaps "with his Quraysh tribesmen"/"with the Quraysh"?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...The family... Who? (He, his father and his brother were mentioned. Do you refer to the three persons?)

• Changed to Abu Sufyan's family as it may have included the rest of his surviving children and wife. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Checking back on the source, it says "Abu Sufyan and the Umaiyids". Just kept Abu Sufyan. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...Yazid, whom he later dispatched... Is "later" necessary?

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• ..., where Abu Sufyan already owned property in the vicinity of Damascus, in return for the loyalty of the Banu Abd Shams. Unclear sentence. When and from whom did they receive the property?

• Need to do further research on this and will update you here. He owned property, according to the Muslim sources, in Syria (various sources mention the "vicinity of Damascus", "the Balqa", or a particular village in the Balqa) from before his conversion to Islam. None of the sources mention from whom he received it though.

• In this case, why are we sure that they received it for their loyalty? Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Abu Sufyan obtained this property before Islam and before the conquest, it was not given to him by Muhammad or Abu Bakr. The point the source is suggesting is that Abu Sufyan had economic interests in Syria and to obtain Abu Sufyan's and his family's backing, Abu Bakr gave them a prominent role in the conquest of Syria. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Consider deleting the text ", in return for the loyalty of the Banu Abd Shams" - it is misleading, because the context suggest that he received it for his loyalty towards a Muslim leader.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Consider introducing Abu Ubayda ibn al-Jarrah, Iyad ibn Ghanm and Umayr ibn Sa'd al-Ansari.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 04:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...Umar's efforts to curtail the influence of the Qurayshite aristocracy in the Muslim state in favor of the early Muslim converts. This is a statement out of the blue. Perhaps "Umar's well documented/otherwise obvious efforts"?

• Revised to "well-known". Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Are you sure that the statement is about Umar (not about Uthman)? Please also check whether Umar or Uthman is the subject of the paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes it is Umar, not Uthman that is being discussed. Cplakidas below raised a valid question about "well-known"; perhaps, I need to tweak the phrasing again. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...Medina consistently courted the Kal....Medina's entreaties... Perhaps the central government/the caliph instead of Medina?

• Revised. Al Ameer (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Could the statement "Medina consistently courted the Kal..." also be changed? I am not sure that all readers could easily realize that Medina refers to the Caliph or his government. Borsoka (talk) 08:04, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is not unusual to use a state's capital when referring to its government or leadership. In the "Origins and early life" section Medina is mentioned "as the seat of the Muslim government". Should this suffice for further mentions of Medina in this context, until of course it was replaced by Kufa? I will mention in the article that Kufa became the new seat under Ali. Al Ameer (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• ... the Byzantine emperor practically conceded when he withdrew from Armenia... We were informed that the emperor had moved to Sicily not to Armenia.

• Not contradictory, as far I could tell. He (or his army) withdrew from Armenia in 653; he was leading the Byzantine fleet against the Arabs in 654 or 655 when he was forced to sail for Sicily. Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...Uthman's confiscation of crown lands... Is "confiscation" the proper term?

• To me, "confiscation" would be the correct term as these were lands that belonged to the "Community", i.e. the Muslim settler troops, and they were seized by the caliph for the treasury. This is still a specific area I am not too clear on though. @AhmadLX: What are your thoughts on this? Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO "confiscation" is correct. Borsoka what would you suggest? Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• To me, the term "confiscation" refers to the transfer of property to the fiscus (or Crown), not from the fiscus (or Crown) to an individual. Borsoka (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Now, Umar's view was that these lands were in principle state assets, but were de facto controlled by the warriors. Uthman's argument was that they are state assets and as state head he can use them the way he saw fit. He did not declare them his personal property.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

If you say confiscation is the proper term in context, I will accept your decision. I am not a native speaker. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...his alleged nepotism drove the Quraysh ... to oppose the caliph... The footnote states that he preferred the Quraysh.

• @AhmadLX: Also on this. Uthman gave favor to his own clansmen, i.e. specifically the Umayyads/Banu Abd Shams, and this was opposed by the rest of the Quraysh, i.e. Zubayr, Talha, A'isha, Amr, Ibn Abi Waqqas etc. While his motive is not fully understood (whether it was to make it easier to rule the new vast empire by relying on close relatives or if it was simply to empower and enrich his own family), it is undisputed that he gave political and economic favor to his immediate relatives and Umayyad/Abd Shams clan. For reference, Donner 2012 pp. 152–153, Kennedy 2004, p. 74, Madelung 1997, pp.86–87. So I am thinking to change "Qurayshite control" to "centralized control" to avoid the confusion pointed out by Borsoka. Opposed? Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree here. Several Quraysh including Talha, and Zubayr, who eventually opposed him for whatever reasons, were among the beneficiaries of his grants. Amr's opposition was likely due to his removal from the office. MOreover, this is what Hinds and Donner say. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Borsoka it was like this: Umar diverged from Abu Bakr's policy of relying on the Quraysh in governing the caliphate. Uthman tried reversing it but in that favored his own Umayyad clan more than other Quraysh. This has been interpreted by the traditional sources as sort of nepotism and influence of his secretary Marwan, an interpretation accepted wholesale by Madelung. Other historians, including Kennedy, Hinds, Donner etc see it as centralization and stabilization effort in view of the enormous size of the empire and anarchist nature of Arab Bedouins of central Arabia, who were in the majority in the garrisons. These were angered by decreasing of their prestige, while the non-Umayyad Quraysh were dissatisfied with the increasing Umayyad influence. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 11:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX: We still may need to clarify the wording in the note. Should we 1) modify "Qurayshite control" to "centralized control" or 2) keep "Qurayshite control" but change "appointment of his relatives" to "appointment of his close relatives" or 3) "appointment of his kinsmen from the Banu Umayya and the Banu Abd Shams"? Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the late response. I would prefer the second option ("appointment of his relatives" --> "appointment of his close relatives"). Even better, in my opinion, would be to attach to it the 3rd option as well: "appointment of his close relatives from the Banu Umayya and the Banu Abd Shams". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks AhmadLX, I modified the footnote accordingly, plus some minor c/e. Al Ameer (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...to the east and west... Is this necessary? I am not sure that Egypt is located to the east west of (early medieval) Syria.

• Removed. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Himyar is linked to the article "Himyarite Kingdom" and it ceased to exist in 525 AD.

• Will have to expand that article to include the Himyarites' Islamic descendants. Plan on doing this over the next few days. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done now, see Himyarite Kingdom#Tribal presence in Syria and Egypt (7th–8th centuries). Plan on expanding in future if no one else does and separating to its own article. Al Ameer (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka, how are you going with this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I will continue the review in a couple of days. I have been realy busy in RL. I think the article is very close to a FA. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• ...some of the traditional Muslim sources... WP:WEASEL: "some" and "traditional". Could we say "the earliest/widely accepted sources" or something similar?

• Agree on "some", this was a little compromise reached above due to valid concerns raised by Funk about the universality of the sources' view of Mu'awiya's leadership of the politically united caliphate as the "year of unity". As for "the traditional sources"/"the Muslim tradition", this is generally used in modern literature about the subject to broadly refer to the early Muslim sources. Rarely are these sources "contemporary", the earliest usually date to the 8th century and most to the 9th and 10th, but also as late as the 15th. These sources cite chains of transmission that supposedly go back to people contemporary to the days of the Prophet Muhammad, the first four caliphs and the Umayyads. Understandably, it could confuse readers, so I changed it to "early Muslim sources" in most instances, exceptions being when the "tradition" is the subject of the section.

• ...Mu'awiya is credited by the traditional sources... Who? Could we say "the earliest/reliable sources" or something similar?

• Changed per above. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...the crown lands that he confiscated in Iraq and Arabia... Did he confiscate crown lands for himself or did he confiscate lands for the Crown?
• ...the absolute government practiced by Caliph Ali... Could Ali's government be described as "absolute"? Based on the article, I understand he was not in control of significant parts of his empire.

• Removed altogether. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...After Ziyad's death in 673, Mu'awiya gradually replaced him in all of his offices... Perhaps because of may poor understanding of English, but I cannot imagine how a dead person could be replaced with anybody gradually.

• Hope I modified to be clearer. Ziyad's son was installed to his father's offices gradually between 673 and Mu'awiya's death. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...According to the Muslim traditional sources, the raids peaked between 668 and 669. Could we say "nearly contemporaneous/reliable/widely accepted sources"? For instance, an article published in a newspaper in 2021 is a more traditional source than an online article from 2018.

• Changed per above. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• ...though the traditional Muslim sources offer divergent details... Again, I do not understand what a traditional source means. Perhaps "earliest/relieable/widely accepted/primary sources"?

• Changed per above. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 09:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks @Borsoka:. Forgive my slow response time (real life's fault), but I will get to all of these asap. Al Ameer (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Borsoka: I hope most of these points have been addressed satisfactorily. I want to hear from AhmadLX regarding the "confiscation" question and the nepotism phrasing before addressing them. I will work on the Himyar article or create a new one about the Himyar tribe of the Islamic era to avoid confusion with the pre-Islamic Himyarite royal family, from whom the Islamic-era Himyar supposedly descended. Al Ameer (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think there is a single pending issue in addition you mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Borsoka: Yes I missed that one. Answered now. Al Ameer (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this thoroughly researched, interesting article. Only one issue is pending, but I assume it will be solved soon. Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review Borsoka. That issue (regarding the privileging of the Quraysh or his closer relatives) should be addressed pretty soon, just a matter of tweaking. Waiting to hear Ahmad's thoughts on my proposals. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Update: the final issue that was pending has now been addressed. Al Ameer (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Back for the source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

For sake of use, I'll separate these by category.

Standardization

• Decide if you are going to link the author at each mention, or only the first, there is currently a large mixture of them. I generally prefer to link only the first mention, but either one is acceptable as long as it is standardized.

• I also prefer a single link, but most of these are templates which provide the author-link. To make it simple, I just linked all mentions. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Decide if locations will be "Location, State", "Location, Country", "Location", or no location, and standardize to that.

Brill search

• Bosworth, C. Edmund (1991) links to a search within Brill, not to the article itself, change the link to this. Please note that I don't have full access to Brill, and if that changes the way the links would work, please disregard this. I'm also OK with changing these links myself if you'd prefer, as it's not very impactful (in the way changing dates might be) and somewhat tedious. Adding a url= parameter to the EI2 templates works and automatically adds the url-access parameter.
• Christides, Vassilios (2000) ditto, use this.
• Dixon, 'Abd al-Ameer A. (1978) change link to this.
• Gardet, Louis (1965), same as first two, as Brill search, use this
• Gibb, H. A. R. (1960 Brill search, use this link.
• Hasson, Isaac (2002) Brill search, use this link.
• Hawting, Gerald R. (2002) this
• Hinds, Martin (1991) this
• Hinds, Martin (1993) this
• Lammens, Henri (1960) this
• Shahid, Irfan (2000a) this
• Shahid, Irfan (2000b) this
• Sourdel, D. (1965) this
• Vaglieri, L. Veccia (1960) this
• Watt, W. Montgomery (1960a) this
• Watt, W. Montgomery (1960b) this

• I added the urls, though the versions I used were the (digitized) books. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Dates

• For almost all of these, use whichever date comes from the edition you used to write the article, and the orig-year as mentioned if needed. Most of them probably have google books links for different editions and I'm happy to hunt them down and add them if you mark which date should be used.
• Crone, Patricia (1980) and Crone, Patricia; Hinds, Martin (1986) both have links which lead to a 2003 reprint, although the ISBN is appropriate for both per WorldCat; may wish to change the date to 2003 for both with original-years of the 1980 and 1986 (use |orig-year=); however, if the edition you used for this is the original, retain 1980 and 1986 dates with no original year.

• Done on Crone-Hinds 1986. I could do this as well with Crone 1980 by replacing the templates and writing out a full citation. @Cplakidas: Would it make more sense to modify the template? Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: I can modify the template so that |year= is editable when |orig-year= parameter is provided, that should cover it. Constantine ✍ 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• de Goeje, Michael Jan (1910) where does the 1910 date come from, given that the work itself is from 1911? I've been unable to find a 1910 edition of it.

• Fixed. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Donner, Fred M. (1981) Link gives the year of 2014 but ISBN is appropriate for both, I suggest the usage of 1981 original-year and 2014 date year.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Donner, Fred M. (2010) The link gives the 2012 date, ISBN is appropriate for both, suggest the original year 2010 the date year 2012.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Elad, Amikam (1999) link gives a date of 1995, WorldCat gives 1994; suggest using an original-year of 1994 and a date of 1995 (unless you used a physical book with the 1999 date, in which case retain 1999 as the date with 1994 as the original-year.

• The link I have is for the Second Edition and it shows publication year of 1999. See here. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ende, Werner (1977) my German is not flawless (or even good...) but it looks like the publishing year was 1974, if so, use the original year of 1974 and date of 1977.
• Foss, Clive (2010) In a complex situation the link gives the date as 2013, and WorldCat as 2016, although 2010 is also an appropriate date for the ISBN; if you wish to retain 2010 date, change the link to this; you also may wish to change the date to 2016 and orig-year the 2010 date, and link to this, in line with WorldCat, which would also give the publisher as Routledge, rather than Ashgate; I would generally consider Routledge to be of higher quality than Ashgate, but I will admit limited experience with Ashgate, and I won't challenge Foss as HQRS in any academic source.
• Hawting, Gerald R. (2000) link gives a date of 2002, and ISBN is appropriate for both; you may wish to change the date to 2002A (and the current Hawting, Gerald R. (2002) to 2002B) with an orig-year of 2000, or more simply just change the link to this
• Kaegi, Walter E. (1992) link gives the date of 1995, suggest a date of 1995 and orig-year of 1992

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Kennedy, Hugh (1998) firstly, link author at first mention, secondly, the link gives a date of 2008, suggest using that date and orig-year of 1998.
• Shaban, M. A. (1971) has an orig-date of 1971 and linked date of 1976; suggest the date of 1976 and orig-year of 1971.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

IDs

• Crone, Patricia (1994) three IDs seems somewhat excessive, suggest dropping S2CID 154370527; also decide if all or only one mention of the author will be linked.
• Miles, George C. (1948) again, three IDs seem excessive.
• Sprengling, Martin (1939) same.

• Removed the SCIDs from all. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Author-links

• Ende, Werner (1977) may wish to authorlink to the de:Werner Ende page.
• Kohlberg, Etan (2020) may wish to author-link to de:Etan Kohlberg.
• Miles, George C. (1948) fr:George Carpenter Miles

• Linked. Al Ameer (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes

• Hawting, G.R., ed. (1996) Link was broken, I have changed URL to a working one.
• Humphreys, R. Stephen (2006) Oneworld isn't ideal as a publisher but I'll accept on author's merit.
• Jankowiak, Marek (2013) while Academia.edu is very useful, it does at times host information without authors permission; it does look like the work was uploaded by the author themselves in this case.
• Kennedy, Hugh 2004, 2007 and 2016 all have publishers that aren't ideal, especially De Capo press, but I will accept on the author's merit.
• Hasson, Isaac (1982) and Lilie, Ralph-Johannes (1976) I've added the translated titles.

• @Al Ameer son: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Iazyges: most academic publications hold the copyright to what they publish and don't allow authors to post the final versions of the work on sites like Academia.edu, so it would legally be a copyright violation. The author's work (preprint) they are usually allowed to publish, but the final version should be cited anyway. (t · c) buidhe 10:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Buidhe: That is fair, should it be presumptively removed then? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

    Yes, that's what I would recommend based on the requirement not to link to copyvio. (t · c) buidhe 21:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Iazyges Is this source review passed? (t · c) buidhe 19:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: yes, source review passes. I had thought some were not yet done but they were just unresponded to, but fixed in the article itself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod

• Not my area, so comments will be general. It looks pretty good, and well-sourced.
• Lead: only 3 paras, but the 4th is very long, but the first para is pretty short. Split? At "Although Mu'awiya confined the influence of his Umayyad clan to the governorship of Medina ..." Probably. Several other paras lower down are pretty long. Or is another new para needed? The final section of the article "Muslim views" is important, and not really covered in the lead.

• I broke the third lead para. Further down in the article, I broke up two particularly long passages in the "War with Byzantium" section and one para in "Assessment". There are a couple others I noticed, especially in "Early military career" and one in "Assessment", but I believe in those cases it would be better not to split. Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lead. Would a mention, or more emphasis here, that M was much less closely associated with the Prophet than his Rashidun predecessors, until the last 3 years?

• Added the following sentence: "Unlike his predecessors, who had been close, early companions of Muhammad, Mu'awiya was a relatively late follower of the Islamic prophet." Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Ali turned his attention toward Mu'awiya, who, unlike the other provincial governors, had a strong and loyal power base, demanded revenge for the slaying of his Umayyad kinsman Uthman and could not be easily replaced" at the least, needs a comma after Uthman.

• Definitely. Broke up the sentence, and added the comma as well.

• The Commons category is not linked, not that there's all that much in there.

• Linked in article now. Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The pic captioned "Lead seal announcing Mu'awiya's dismissal of Abd Allah ibn Amir from the governorship of Basra, which occurred in 664 CE. He was replaced by Ziyad ibn Abihi" duplicated the one in the infobox (not the same piece I think.

• They are different pieces, same subject though. Should I remove one? Al Ameer (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe - they are not that informative. Aren't there any decent photos of buildings he would have known? Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, any idea when the further comments might be coming along? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Soonish, but they haven't dealt with the first lot yet. Johnbod (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing: "...holds that Mu'awiya had further developed a mosque originally built by Caliph Umar on the Temple Mount and received his formal oaths of allegiance there" - isa this the Al-Aqsa Mosque or another?

• Nothing of the structure built under Umar and/or Muawiya is known to be archaeologically extant, but modern sources consider it something of a precursor to the Aqsa Mosque, which was built by the Umayyad caliphs Abd al-Malik and al-Walid (690–715). Let me know if the revised wording properly reflects this. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• How big was the standing Muslim army during his reign? Do we have estimates?

• There was no standing army in his time. There were various important garrisons, mainly those of Basra and Kufa in Iraq; Fustat and Alexandria in Egypt; and across Syria–Upper Mesopotamia, presumably including the soldiers along the frontier area with Byzantium. Numbers mentioned by the early sources are generally unreliable. Hugh Kennedy, author of Armies of the Caliphs cited in this article, proposes 100,000 combined in Iraq, about the same in Syria, and 40,000 in Egypt. They were composed of tribesmen and their clients. These were not professional troops that could be mobilized upon command by the caliph as a standing army, though the tribal soldiery in Syria were the closest thing to that, being more organized, disciplined and motivated to heed Mu'awiya's orders. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Mu'awiya died of an illness in Damascus in Rajab 60 AH" better say something vague about his age.

• Added. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, that's it. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks @Johnbod:. Please let me know if my changes suffice. Al Ameer (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Essentially, yes, so Support. On reflection, I think a mention of the very hostile later Shia view should be slipped into the last para of the lead, but I won't hold it up for that. Seems a very thorough piece of work! Johnbod (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Fair point. Added the general view of Mu'awiya in Shia and Sunni tradition. Also made a few other improvements to lead. Thank you for your suggestions and support. Al Ameer (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Constantine

Good to see this here, will review over the next couple of days. Constantine ✍ 17:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Per MOS:SINGLE, glosses of words, e.g. for Rashidun, should be in single quotation marks.

• Fixed. Mentions of the "Rashidun" were the only instances I saw. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I think this includes terms translated from Arabic and denoted as such, e.g. "Night of Clamor", "the year of unity", etc.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• who led trade caravans to Syria. perhaps add here that this was part of the Byzantine Empire at the time?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yazid, whom he dispatched I'd recommend replacing the comma with a full stop, and separating the two conflicts (Ridda wars and the conquest of Syria).

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• contradicted Umar's well-known efforts to... 'well-known' to whom? Why is it even relevant that they are 'well-known'? Perhaps rephrase to 'contradicted Uma'rs efforts to otherwise...'?

• Agree. Changed to "otherwise"; discussing this above as well.

• central government's entreaties which central government? Presumably Medina is meant, but this is not entirely clear.

• I prefer Medina; currently discussing this above. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• I recommend redirecting 'Greek Christian' to Rûm, esp. since Eastern Orthodoxy is an anachronism for the 7th century.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Link 'garrison cities' to Amsar

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in the capitalization of Caliphate when referring to the state vs. caliphate when referring to the office (e.g. maintain the caliphate's influence on the island)

• Ran through them again, should be good now. Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The rest to come Constantine ✍ 19:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you @Cplakidas:. Looking forward to the rest of your review. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• "early Muslim" is used in two different senses in the text: on the one hand for the first followers of Muhammad (e.g. "early Muslim converts"), and on the other for the early Muslim period (as in "early Muslim sources", which however are much later than the events discussed). In "early Muslim commander" or "early Muslim elite", I am actually unsure what sense is meant. I recommend changing the first case to something else, like "earliest Muslim converts" or "first Muslim converts". In the case of "early Muslim elites" perhaps "nascent Muslim elite" or simply describe them as the Ansar or Muhajirun or the specific group they belonged to.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• enabling the governor (optional) for some reason it feels odd to read of Mu'awiya as 'the governor', especially if just mentioned by name. Perhaps 'the governor of Syria'?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• nascent Muslim community link "Muslim community" to ummah

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• collapsed and by then... "collapsed, but by then..."?

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• wrap italicized Arabic terms with {{transl|ar|}}

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Cplakidas Do you consider your comments to be resolved? (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @Buidhe: My comments above are addressed, but I am currently looking at the remainder of the article. Constantine ✍ 19:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the War with Byzantium section, I know that there is a recent revisionist tendency on the chronology of the campaigns, but as far as I am aware, the 'traditional' narrative based on Theophanes is still the one commonly accepted in modern histories. I would suggest adding a comment before the section beginning with Al-Tabari reports... to the effect that the culmination of Muawiya's campaigns was an assault on Constantinople, but that the chronologies of Arabic, Syriac, and Byzantine sources are at odds with one another, and that the traditional view is of a great series of naval-borne assaults against Constantinople in the 670s. Conversely, I would highlight that Jankowiak's reconstruction is exactly that, a revisionist (though quite likely accurate) modern challenge to the established chronology. In short, the reader needs to be made aware that there is a controversy, and what the two opposing opinions are. Having Jankowiak's view only is not enough.

• Fair point. Let me know if my revisions suffice and please feel free to make substantive changes where needed. Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Al Ameer son: Have made some tweaks/additions. Feel free to revise. Otherwise your changes are fine. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• In 670, Mu'awiya appointed Uqba as Egypt's deputy governor over the North African lands under Arab control west of Egypt and, at the head of a 10,000-strong force, Uqba commenced his expedition against the territories west of Cyrenaica a rather convoluted sentence, please split it up.

• Done. Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• The significance of the appellation 'Khosrow of the Arabs' will likely be lost to the reader, add an explanation to the effect that this likens him to the autocratic Sasanian monarchs, commonly called 'Khosrow' by the Arab historians and likened to the Biblical pharaoh.

• Another good point. I am working on finding a source for this, having trouble particularly with the connection to Pharoah. Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• On the Shia view, perhaps add that the ritual cursing of Muawiya is a central hallmark of the emerging Shia Islam, both in the Twelver and Ismaili traditions.

• Also having difficulty finding an RS for the ritual cursing being the a central hallmark of the Twelver and Ismaili traditions. What I have found is that under Shia influence, the Abbasid caliphs began having Mu'awiya cursed in the Friday prayers in the 10th century and prohibited people from invoking blessings on Mu'awiya. @AhmadLX: Do you have any helpful sources? Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: Have to look. Give me a couple days. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 21:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: will also have a look in my sources, on both this and Khosrow. Constantine ✍ 07:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've found something on cursing ritual although it is about Shia in general and doesn't talk about specific subdivisions of Twelver and Ismaili. Going to add soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

On Mu'awiya and the Shia: Donohue (The Buwayhid Dynasty in Iraq, 2003) p. 46 and Busse (Chalif und Grosskönig, 1969) p. 421 write that under the Buyids, the Shia in Baghdad wrote curses against Muhammad's companions; these were taken down, but the Buyids did allow curses on Mu'awiya in the mosques, to which the Abbasid faction also assented. Busse (Chalif und Grosskönig, 1969) p. 409 notes that the Baghdadi water-carriers cried 'Got have mercy on Mu'awiya' as an anti-Shia slur, and that the more theologically active Abbasid caliphs like Ma'mun and Mu'tadid had contemplated prohibiting the veneration of Mu'awiya and the Umayyads but had backed down in the face of popular sentiment, widespread even in Mesopotamia. Halm (Die Kalifen von Kairo, 2003) p. 192 writes that in 1004 al-Hakim prohibited a vegetable soup said to have been favoured by Mu'awiya, and in p. 90 that during anti-Fatimid riots in 972, the "usual anti-Shia slogan 'Mu'awiya is Al'is uncle' was heard." Constantine ✍ 15:48, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the crux of it is already present in the article. Adding specific details would, IMO, be undue weight. Al Ameer son What do you think? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@AhmadLX:@Cplakidas: Depends on the details. The information above does help illustrate how Mu'awiya figured in the rising sectarianism between the emerging Shia and Sunni factions, but I agree we could get lost in the weeds. I found a different source, Kraemer 1992, pp. 64–65, which I think helps put this in a summarizing way. I added it to the article, along with a general comparison with Fatimid Egypt. Let me know if it flies. Al Ameer (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

On Khosrow, the EI2 article 'Kisrā' by Morony (col. 5, pp. 184-185) attests to the fact that the proper name had become the typical appellation for all Sasanian monarchs, and that the Arabs associated royal splendour, cultured manners and worldliness, but also the 'arbitrary exercise of power', with it, as opposed to the spiritual and humble message of Muhammad. I remember reading explicit references to Khosrow entering early Muslim popular consciousness as a sort of Pharaoh-like figure, and that vice versa that references to the Pharaoh in the Quran actually were allusions to Khosrow, but can't remember where... Constantine ✍ 15:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Explained the Khosrow comparison per Morony's entry. Still no luck with that Pharoah comparison. Al Ameer (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

That's it. I've made some tweaks here and there in the prose. Otherwise the article is a splendid piece of work, extremely thorough and very readable, on such a pivotal historical figure. Well done, once again. Constantine ✍ 20:05, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Cplakidas, for your review/suggestions and copyedits. We will hopefully resolve the remaining points shortly. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• Al Ameer, how are you doing with those remaining points? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Just finished the revisions, hope I have addressed them now. Al Ameer (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Constantine, it's ready for you to relook at. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Al Ameer son and Gog the Mild: Looks very good, the essence of my comments above has been more than adequately addressed. Happy to support :) Constantine ✍ 13:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2021 [42].

---

1982 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the 1982 entry into the World Snooker Championship. Steve Davis has ascended to the top of the pyramid, and won the 1981 event. He's the favourite, but ends up winning just one frame as he loses 1-10 in his opening round match. Six-time champion Ray Reardon and controversial figure Alex Higgins contest the final, with Higgins coming out on top, his second title. This was the first event to have the modern style event, with 32 participants, sixteen of which coming through a qualification round. (the year prior it was a 24-man tournament). It's a great event, and I look forward to your comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - on a point of order, I assume this is a joint nomination with BennyOnTheLoose...? I will be back for a review in due course! Cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lee? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The prose is not FA standard. Here are some examples:

• Confusing repetition "a pre-tournament qualification tournament"
  • So I've changed the second tournament to "event". It was a qualification event for 48 participants over two rounds to be one of 16 qualifiers, and took place before the event. Let me know if there is a better wording for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Wrong tense "Knowles claimed that he has gone to a nightclub until 2:00 am the previous night"
  • Changed to "had" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• This lacks flow " Cliff Wilson had been taking medication for a viral infection. Suffering from chest pains, he was concerned that he was having a heart attack, but testing showed that he wasn't." When was the testing done? While he thought he was having an attack? The bit about the viral infection needs to come later, and we don't use contractions.
  • I don't have much in the way of info as to when, other than saying it happened after the match. BennyOnTheLoose might have some additional details. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Amended the text, as Snooker Scene has a different version of what happened. I've kept what both sources agree on. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Vison aids" why not just say his glasses?
  • Well, he never used to play in glasses, til he got his iconic glasses a year later. This is to say he didn't go and get another pair of contacts, or wear glasses Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Redundancy "He trailed Silvino Francisco 2–7 Francsisco"
  • Typo has been fixed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Here " John Virgo defeated Mike Hallett 10–4 after leading 7–2, Jim Donnelly was the first Scottish player to play at the Crucible" where's the logical flow?
  • Reordered Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• This doesn't make sense "and after Donnelley had won taken further frames"
  • I have reworded this Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Here it is not clear who "their" refers to "Terry Griffiths, who had become the bookmakers favourite to win following the elimination of Steve Davis, led 4–2 but finished their first session behind 4–5 to Willie Thorne"
  • I'm a bit surprised that this isn't clear, their session would be the first session of the match between the two players, but I've reworded regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Fluked a brown" needs more explanation
  • I have added a glossary link for this (both items). We could say that he received some luck or similar to explain it a bit better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Fused participle "The scores were also level at 13–13, with Higgins scoring only nine points across two frames" (..and Higgins scored...)

I think the article would benefit from a copy-edit by someone new to the article. -Graham Beards (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand what WP:PLUSING is, I've taken a decent look into it, but I can't get my head around what the issue actually is. Happy to change these individual points if there is better wording. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• I've done a thorough copyedit on the article (as I always intended to), I can see what you mean, but I think an oppose is a bit strong. Maybe you could give it another look through and see if you are happier? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I thought Tony's explanation was quite clear on the problem. You have used this construction a lot in the article:

"He moved to 9–7 ahead,[28] with Mountjoy then winning three consecutive frames."

"The scores were also level at 13–13, with Higgins scoring only nine points across two frames as White moved into a 15–13 lead, two frames ahead with three to play."

"A break of 83 in the first frame of the second session saw Charlton level the match at 4–4, with Reardon then moving a frame ahead again with a break of 98."

"In the third session, the score went to 8–8 with Reardon then compiling breaks of 94 and 77 to win the next two."

"Reardon was 6–4 ahead when he missed potting a pink, with Higgins going on to win that frame."

"This was reduced as Reardon won frames 22 and 23, the session ending with Higgins leading 13–12."

"With Higgins showing signs of nerves"

These constructions occur often in spoken English but can lead to ambiguity in writing. Professional writers avoid them. In all the years Brian Boulton was contributing his numerous FAs, I never saw him use one. In my view, they are a sign of amateurish writing. You may disagree. Graham Beards (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• All my examples have not been addressed ("but later testing showed that he wasn't). It would be best if you answered (or contested) my points individually. You have gone on to add another fused participle here "with Reardon then compiling breaks of 94 and 77 to win", which implies that you are happy using them—and that's OK as long as you say why you disagree with me. Graham Beards (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Sure, no issues, I'll respond above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:21, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This three weeks in and has attracted no supports and has an open oppose. Unless this changes quite a bit within the next day or two I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this one has certainly stalled so best archived now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2021 [43].

---

Crash Bandicoot (video game)

Nominator(s): Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the highest selling video games for the PlayStation, a rare Western game to see commercial success in Japan, the title that put Naughty Dog on the map, and the beginning of an eponymous series that has made the titular Tasmanian critter a household name. This article was promoted to GA a decade ago, and after spending the last few years getting back in the groove following a lengthy hiatus, I finally decided to man up and make my first FA candidate out of it. I dedicated the good chunk of January sprucing the page up and trying to meet those formidable standards, wringing any and all sources I could find. The subsequent peer review proved reassuring, but seeing how this is my very first FAC, further input through this process is naturally welcome. Hoping for the best, Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose on images. This article has a lot of non-free images, which presents a concern wrt WP:NFCC#3. Additionally, the fair-use rationales are generally minimal, meaning that there is little in the way of justification for use of all of these. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: The images in the 'Marketing and release' section seemed the least necessary, so went ahead and removed those. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

That is a good first step, but the FURs should still be strengthened. (Also, as a secondary issue, images generally should not use fixed px size). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Spruced up the non-free rationales for the cover and character development art the best that I could, and removed all size parameters. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Improvements still needed. For example, the lead image is missing information about who is believed to be the copyright holder, and the purpose of use statement remains minimal. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Taken care of. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:28, 2 October 021 (UTC)

Okay. I've struck my oppose but would still suggest additional work on strengthening the purpose of use fields in particular, as they are key to justifying the need for non-free materials. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, I am assuming that your striking your oppose does not constitute a pass; is that correct? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Correct - IMO the FURs would benefit from additional elaboration. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Is a gameplay video really necessary? A screenshot is, I accept, typical, but is a non-free video needed in this case?

The video was a recommendation from the peer review on the basis that a short section of the gameplay in action would better serve the purpose of illustrating the mechanics and presentation. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• What is the "Go West" source? I think it's a student paper (not a piece of peer-reviewed research), and so I'm not sure it would constitute a reliable source -- unless I'm missing something?

I would think that any document out of a major university would be considered reliable, and the paper itself is quite reasonably sourced in itself as the endnotes section would indicate. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Have you had a look through the Google Scholar results? There are some potentially interesting hits. There were some interesting tidbits in this and this, for instance -- but maybe those details are already in the article!

The first link doesn't appear to have anything relating to the game, and whatever reference there is in the second seems to be in an unavailable page. Anyway, I've already scoured through Google Books, and just about all the relevant resources I can see have been incorporated. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Hope that's useful -- I'm afraid I can't commit to a full review, but I'm pleased to see this here. I spent a lot of time on these games as a kid (and was then shocked by the difficulty of the remakes...). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from ProtoDrake

Support: Looking through this article, I can't find anything particularly major. While I wouldn't put citations in the middle of sentences without commas personally, the rest of the article seems all right. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Coorditator comment

More than three weeks in and this nomination has only attracted a single general support. Unless further indications of a consensus to promote appear within the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• This doesn't seem to be gathering any momentum, so I am archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2021 [44].

---

This Dust Was Once the Man

Nominator(s): Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Whitman's shortest (and un-coincidentally, arguably my favorite) poem on Lincoln. Relatively short, but in my opinion comprehensive based upon the large number of Whitman sources I've looked at. This is my third Whitman and Lincoln article nominated for FAC. Thanks Hog Farm for the GAR, and Damien Linnane for a ce. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from DMT

Was around last time, seems right.

• Perhaps I'm showing ignorance in regards to American history, but should "the union" be wikilined?

• Linked

• It may be worth wiki link "similar views on slavery" with Abraham Lincoln and slavery - the mention of the union applies the same here as it does above.

• I think this one might be a little EASTEREGGy because if I linked "on slavery", the reader would presumably expect it to be about Lincoln and Whitman's connection to slavery...

• Fair point.

• "The poem was not revised after its first publication" - should mention that this is in contrast to Whitman's usual practice.

• added note, does that work

• Yeah, that's good. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "in 2019 Whitman scholar Ed Folsom wrote..." → 'Whitman scholar Ed Folsom wrote, in 2019,...'

• sure

• For the sake of easing a dense - but not by fault of you - section, I think "Folsom wrote that Whitman scholars generally favor the secession interpretation in a 2014 journal article" can be changed to '—having espoused this interpretation before.'

• I'm not sure I understand exactly what change you're suggesting here, could you clarify?

• Splicing the sentences together: "Whitman scholar Ed Folsom wrote, in 2019, that Whitman's 'foulest crime' is generally viewed not as slavery but either as Lincoln's assassination or the secession of the Confederate States of America—having espoused this interpretation before[11][12]". DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Spliced in a different way, does that work?

• Yep, that's good.

• Roy Morris is a scholar of...? Literature, poetry, Americana, presidents, civil war...? Best to clarify to avoid the dreaded weasel words.

• clarified

• "death– as" - Is this hyphen's placement a typo? I.e. should it be spaced out or have the space closed?

• I think a Comma is OK here

• "In 1965 Ramsey Clark, the United States Attorney General, read part of the poem to a subcommittee of the United States House Committee on the Judiciary during a hearing on creating penalties for assassination of the president" - this is interesting but ultimately, in my opinion, trivial. It's akin to mentioning Obama's opinions on The Wire, simply lacking the speciality to justify the inclusion.

• I think it's relevant to show that the poem hasn't completely faded from the popular view and was cited by a prominent American like 100 years after. It's admittedly not the most related and I'm not completely opposed to cutting, but I don't think the article is long enough that it has to go. Willing to discuss further...

• This, Eddie891, is a good rationale. Fine with it staying. Often, qualms on here need only diplomacy. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "I noticed the problem with Griffin (2015) from last time carries over, that being redundancy. Best resolve that.

Welp, that's me. Short comments for a nice and succinct article. DMT Biscuit (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Cut. Thanks, DMT Biscuit, some responses above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• DMT Biscuit, one response above. Many thanks again Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• All's well, as far as I am concerned. Support.DMT Biscuit (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from DanCherek

• Italicize Leaves of Grass in the infobox caption

• done

• "Lincoln's assassination on April 15, 1865" — he was shot on April 14 and died on April 15; the lead of Assassination of Abraham Lincoln says he "was assassinated [...] on April 14, 1865" so I would take a closer look at the wording there

• I mean, it wasn't an assassination until he died, but de-specified to mid-April.

• "striking appearance" and "unpretentious dignity" — the quotation marks make it seem like those are Whitman's own words. But that's not the case, right?

• attributed

• Move the Leaves of Grass wikilink from the Publication history section to the Background section

• done

• "Whitman writes in the third line: 'the foulest crime known in any land or age.'" — it looks like you omitted 'in history' so I would either use [...] to note the omission or just use the entire quote

• added

• "After arguing in favor of secession" — I'm guessing he wasn't arguing in favor of secession itself, but rather in favor of a secession interpretation, so I would clarify this

• changed

• Herman Melville is linked twice

• fixed

• "Assassination of John F. Kennedy" — "assassination" in lowercase

• fixed

• The Wikisource link is broken.

• Cut, it takes up a lot of space and we have the full text here

• Should the article be added to the Assassination section of the Abraham Lincoln navbox? I don't think it's in there currently even though the navbox is used in the article.

• I don't think it's relevant enough for a link, cut

I hope these are helpful! I have a peer review open here for what I'm hoping will be my first FAC, and any comments would be appreciated if you have the time; no worries if not. DanCherek (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Good points, DanCherek, addressed. What say you? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, nice work! DanCherek (talk) 03:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Damien Linnane

Having already been familiar with this article and recently provided feedback that has been addresssed, I'm happy to support on prose. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review and Support from Vami_IV

Reserving; currently working on an article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I am satisfied that the sources used are reliable. Spot check in progress. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• All clear on the spot check. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
• Only outstanding matters for the purpose of this review is that there is a long-form book citation ([14]) in #References and that only one publisher is linked under #Sources. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 09:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Tks, Vami IV, these should be handled. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Sehr gutt. I'm pleased to support this bid for Featured. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• No problems with the prose.
• The Background doesn't mention that Lincoln was 16th President of the United States. Probably worth mentioning that Lincoln was president and led the Union side of the American Civil War, considering the analysis mentions this information.

• Done

• Any information on the poem's reception at the time of publication?

• None that I've found, and I've looked pretty hard. It doesn't seem to have stood out among passage to india at the time

• I checked the lede and infobox, and except for the above mentioned 16th President statement, everything is cited in the article.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you have responded. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

THanks, Z1720, thoughts? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

• @FAC coordinators: I'm not in a particular rush (this has only been open for about 11 days), but it has passed image/source reviews and four supports on prose. Is there anything else you guys are looking for that I can try to drum up? No worries if it's just a matter of time. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be ticking along nicely. Let's give it a few more days to ensure that anyone wishing to comment on it has the opportunity. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Are you including publisher locations or not? You should be consistent.
• Leaves of grass: a textual variorum of the printed poems: in Sources Whitman is given as the author, but it is cited as Bradley. Which? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  Gog the Mild, fixed citation to Bradley (it's in the preface), and removed the only location. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 18 October 2021 [45].

---

Apollo 4

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... an uncrewed spaceflight, long almost forgotten, but it was a very big deal at the time, attracting VIPs by the score to Kennedy Space Center, including Walter Cronkite, who got a bit more than he expected. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7

Looks good. Some minor stuff:

• "Lasting almost nine hours, the mission splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, achieving all mission goals." Wording slightly awkward. Achieving all its missions goals? All the goals of the mission?

Rephrased.

• "the main objective; landing astronauts on the Moon" replace semicolon with colon.

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Kennedy's death by assassination" Suggest just "Kennedy's assassination"

OK.

• "at this time it had not even been decided what sort of spacecraft would be used" Actually, the Apollo CSM was already being designed.

Changed "decided" to "finalized".

• "return in full to Earth" Suggest deleting "in full", as this already appears earlier in the sentence

Fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Apollo 4 was the first flight from KSC, and the first using Launch Complex 39 there, built to accommodate the Saturn V." I think this should be in the lead as well.

Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest introducing the abbreviation "LC-39" here

Fine.

• "Three Saturn IB launches took place in 1966" You could say that these were AS-201, AS-202 and AS-203, as AS-201 and AS-203 are mentioned below.

OK.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In January 1965, General Samuel C. Phillips, director of the Apollo Program," Suggest "Major General Samuel C. Phillips, the director of the Apollo Program"

Rank clarified, but I've gone with "Apollo Program Director"--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "beginning with the S-IVB on August 14, 1966 (by Pregnant Guppy aircraft) and followed closely by the first stage S-IC on September 12, arriving by barge." In the first phrase you use parentheses, in the second, parenthetical comma. Suggest using parentheses for both.

OK.

• "The Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 1967, that killed three astronauts during a launch pad test, threw NASA's schedules into further question—even though AS-501 was uncrewed, NASA officials wanted to closely examine its CSM. NASA had planned to restack the vehicle once this was done,[14] but after the fire that destroyed its sister craft, CSM-017 was subjected to an intensive inspection that found a total of 1,407 errors in the spacecraft". This is not clear: did NASA officials wanted to closely examine its CSM before the fire?

The source says "Although Apollo 4 was an unmanned mission, NASA officials wanted to give command-module 017 a close examination." I guess even closer than planned.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Other problems were discovered, such as the discovery of an errant bolt in one of the J-2 engines, with NASA concerned both to retrieve the surplus hardware item and to ensure that nothing similar happened again" You mean the bolt?

Yes. "it" won't do and I don't want to repeat "bolt".--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "something allowing protection from Florida's weather for equipment and personnel" Suggest deleting "something"
• "NASA public relations head Julian Schneer" should be "Julian Scheer"

Got it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Previously, the way Wernher von Braun's team at the Marshall Space Flight Center, and the old NACA Langley Research Center engineers tested new rockets was by testing each stage incrementally" Comma after "engineers"

Recast.

• "kilometres" should be "kilometers"

Done.

• "re-entry" vs "reentry"

Standardized.

• "deck of the USS Bennington Suggest "aircraft carrier USS Bennington"
• "from Complex 39" Suggest "Launch Complex 39" for consistency

I think that's a quotation

• "each of the Saturn V's three stages burned for slightly longer than expected" Any idea why?

The source really isn't clear on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "According to General Phillips" Drop "General"

OK

• Link "NASA", "U.S. President", "Lunar orbit rendezvous", "Lunar Excursion Module", "AS-201", "LC-34", "LC-37", "heat shield", "atmospheric entry"

Got these.

• "Launch Complex 39" and "apogee" are doubly linked.

Fixed.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I"ve addressed these things.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Splendid article, informative and interesting. A handful of minor quibbles about the wording:

• The Apollo 1 fire on January 27, 1967, that killed three astronauts during a launch pad test, – for a non-restrictive clause such as this I think you need "which" rather than "that"
• bleachers – che?
• provided the launch crew with invaluable experience – "invaluable" strikes a slightly editorial note without a citation. I think an uncited "valuable" would pass without comment.
• Also wanted was data … and to evaluate – I'm not quite sure but I think we have a singular verb with plural objects.
• and this was due not because of the performance … but because the burn – "due … because" seems wrong here: I'd be inclined to replace both instances of "because" with "to", though that change would necessitate a bit of tidying up at the end of the sentence.
• was transferred to the Smithsonian – the Smithsonian what? A link or fuller title or both would be good here.

Nothing to frighten the horses there, and I'll look in again in the confident expectation of adding my support. – Tim riley talk 23:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reviews. I've completed those.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Good! After a final read-through I am now happy to add my Support. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is well and widely sourced, evidently comprehensive and balanced, splendidly illustrated, and a pleasure to read. Tim riley talk 15:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

A great thing about NASA-related articles is the quality of images.

• Lead image is scheduled for picture of the day in November 2022. I had no idea we schedule them that far ahead. Yet it is rivalled in my opinion by File:Apollo 4 on the night before launch, Kennedy Space Center, Florida, 1967.jpg. To me, that captures the spirit of hope that enshrouded Apollo 4. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• All images are NASA images, so licensed okay.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Nick-D

This article is in good shape, but I'm a little concerned with close paraphrasing. I'd like to offer the following comments:

• Apollo 4 (November 9, 1967, also known as AS-501) - bit clunky. I'd suggest moving the alternate designation out of the brackets.

OK.

• "it had not even been finalized what sort of spacecraft would be used" - bit awkward

Rephrased.

• Did Phillips send a team to North American, or form part of the team himself? The Phillips Report article says the latter.

He went. Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Dozens of haphazardly routed and skinned wires were short circuits just waiting to happen. NASA managers came to see the problems for themselves. Director of Launch Operations Rocco Petrone was said to have cursed; Apollo Spacecraft Program Office manager Joe Shea welled up in tears; and Phillips stood in stunned silence." - this wording is very close to that in the source.

That was already in the article when I started work and I should have checked the phrasing more carefully. I've rephrased where possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been caught out with a similar issue with 'legacy' text that proved problematic at a review, so no dramas. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "On November 6, 1967, the 56½ hour countdown sequence" - what time on 6 November did this start? Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Added. I've gotten all those. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Those changes look good and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Balon Greyjoy

I added two {{nbsp}} templates where a date/mission was broken up up into two separate lines. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Background

• "U.S. President John F. Kennedy challenged his nation" This comes across as WP:POETIC; maybe something more like "Kennedy presented his goal to land"

I think it's OK as is; the language has been used in several Apollo articles, see Apollo 13 and Apollo 11 50th Anniversary commemorative coins. It's an accurate description of what Kennedy did.

I disagree. Not a dealbreaker for me for the FAC, but I do not think it comes across as encyclopedic writing. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I've changed to "proposed".

• "what launch vehicle to use:" I would expect the use of a colon to precede a list of potential options, but the sentence goes on to say that the decision hadn't been finalized. Additionally, I think this sentence in unnecessary as the next paragraph is all about the decision process of how to actually land on the moon.

Cut.

• "early flights of Apollo equipment" Is this referring to just the 3 Saturn IB launches? To be clear which launches this refers to, I would say "The first three flights of Apollo equipment..."

Done with some variation.

• "This smaller launch vehicle did not use the facilities at KSC" This is out of place in a paragraph about how the Saturn IB tests related to Saturn V vehicles, especially since the previous paragraph states that Apollo 4 was the first launch out of KSC. I'm assuming it relates to the later quote about LC-34/LC-37 and automated checkout, but it isn't really clear how its applicable in that sentence.

It's background to the need to qualify the ground facilities at KSC for crewed flight. The IB flights did not do that, this was a part of the purpose of Apollo 4.

I would add this background to the previous paragraph, when it mentions that Apollo 4 was the first flight out of KSC. The phrase "issues resolved by Saturn IB flights" sounds like it is referring to flight hardware; it doesn't make it seem like ground crews at KSC would be similarly prepared without a launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added the need to qualify the ground systems to the background.

• "launched by Saturn V's" I'm assuming this is referring to plural Saturn V rockets? It should be "launched by Saturn V rockets".

Done slightly differently.

• The Benson and Flaherty can be paraphrased/shortened. I would work into the previous sentences how LC-34/37 tests founds issues with the automated checkout that were corrected prior to Apollo 4. Additionally, its mention of the delay before Apollo 4 comes before the article discusses the delay; I think that part can be removed.

I think deleting the little we say about checkout procedures, which arguably aren't as sexy as big rocket fly into sky, would be a mistake. I know you don't like quotes, and this is an area that we differ in.

Delays

• I like the two images of the vehicle, but it causes MOS:SANDWICH; could one be moved to later in the article?

The images are exactly where they should be, since they are discussing what is going on in the adjacent text. I've shortened the first caption, that should help.

Could you crop out the top third of the infobox picture? The picture is really tall, with much of it just being the sky. That would reduce the real estate that the infobox takes up and make the sections less crowded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I've substituted a different image of the launch.

• "and left little spare time for delay" It's not really clear why there is no time for delay, as this discusses how it is to be launched after Apollo 1 (so it's not like an Apollo 4 launch delay causes an Apollo 1 delay).

No, but they're going to need Saturn V for at the latest the fourth crewed mission with appropriate lead times.

I understand there are other timing constraints outside of Apollo 1, but that's not clear from the article. There's no mention of later missions, just the previous Apollo 1 mission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I've eliminated the reference to the crewed mission, and added that more Saturn V missions were to follow.

• "Phillips led a team sent to North American in" I'm assuming Phillips made the decision to send the team, so wouldn't it be enough to just say "Phillips led a team to..."? Additionally, I would say "to the North American plant/factory" as the company name isn't necessarily a location.

Done, more or less.

• "but after the fire that destroyed its sister craft, CSM-017 was subjected to an intensive inspection" This seems repetitive, as the previous sentence mentions the fire fire and that CSM-017 underwent a close examination. Additionally, it's not explained until later in the article that CSM-017 is the Apollo 4 CSM.

Rephrased.

• "NASA managers came to see the problems for themselves." This makes it seem like it was a special trip for the Apollo program directors, weren't they all working out of KSC where the spacecraft was being inspected?

According to the Apollo 4 press kit, Phillips was Headquarters (DC), Low (who replaced Shea) was Houston and Petrone was KSC.

• "Director of Launch Operations Rocco Petrone was said to have cursed; Apollo Spacecraft Program Office manager Joe Shea wept; and Phillips was stunned and silent." This seems like an unnecessary detail/anecdote; these are all pretty typical responses.

My inclination is to leave it in. It serves to illustrate a reaction by people in an article which mostly focuses on machines.

I understand there should be mention of the human factor, but regular things like someone dropping some profanity or crying? It's not like Petrone was known as someone who was mild mannered and would never curse. I'm willing to bet that Petrone wasn't the only one who dropped some choice words, and that they all had moments of stunned silence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cut.

• "Other problems were discovered, such as the discovery of an errant bolt in one of the J-2 engines, with NASA concerned both to retrieve the surplus hardware item and to ensure that nothing similar happened again" I assume the larger issue with this bolt being found is preventing things like it from happening; this makes it seem like there was equal effort in bolt retrieval (presumably a relatively quick job) and overall problem prevent (a big task).

Rephrased.

• "disclosed 1,200 problems with the vehicle" Which vehicle is this? The previous paragraph mentions 1,407 errors with the CSM alone; I'm assuming this is for one of the stages?

Clarified.

• "its launch site, something allowing protection from Florida's weather for equipment and personnel" I would replace "Florida's weather" with something like "severe weather" since the average reader may not know about the danger of Atlantic hurricanes and think Florida is all sun and beach weather. Additionally "something allowing protection" could be shortened to "protected/protecting" something like "its launch site, protecting equipment and personnel from severe weather"

Hurricanes are a minor issue for outdoor equipment in Florida (speaking as a Floridian). It's sitting outside in the heat and humidity. Changed "weather" to "climate"

Hurricane Michael vs. Tyndall Air Force Base (my old stomping ground) would beg to differ. But seriously, I think adding adding "Florida's hot and humid climate" would clear up what the dangers are.

Equipment

• "disastrous fire that took their lives" This comes across as WP:EMPHATIC; it has already been mentioned that the Apollo 1 fire killed the 3 crewmembers. I would just shorten it to say that the the astronauts had been trapped inside the CM during the fire.

  Think this point was overlooked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I got it. Cut the word "disastrous".

• "Apollo 4 was the Saturn V's first flight" This makes it sound like the specific Saturn V would fly multiple times. Maybe change it to "Apollo 4 was the first flight of a Saturn V rocket"

Public interest and media coverage

• "Others in the NASA family—government workers, contractor employees and their dependents—" It's more clear to use "NASA workers and their dependents", since using "family" to describe a workplace is a figure of speech.

Done.

Launch and flight

• "November 6, 1967 at 10:30 pm (0330 on November 7 UT)" and "November 9 at 7:00 am EST (12:00 UTC)" have different formats/ways of referring to UTC. This should be standardized (my preference is the latter one)

Done.

I added a time zone to the 10:30 pm, colon to "0330", and an nbsp template. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "11,168 meters per second (36,639 ft/s)" I think converting to mph is a better unit to convey the high speed, but that's just my personal preference.

I'd rather leave it as is.

Onboard cameras

• "The photographs were not of sufficient resolution to obtain detailed scientific data, but were still of geographic, cartographic, meteorologic, oceanographic, geologic and hydrologic interest." It doesn't make much sense to say there wasn't much data to be used from these photos, and then list 6 scientific disciplines that they were useful for. I would either remove this sentence, or expand on how these photos were used for research purposes.

At the time, these were among the highest shots taken. It's quite understandable that they would be of interest to scientists without being detailed enough to be of real scientific value.

I would then shorten it down to "Earth science" or the like, rather than list off 6 related Earth sciences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath, assessment and spacecraft location

• "slightly longer than expected" How much longer was this?

Orloff and Harland, as usual, have all the figures, but I'm not sure we need such details in a big-picture summing up of the mission.

But why not say how much longer (e.g. "burned 1 second longer than expected")? The article already explains the effect this longer burn had (1 km higher orbit than predicted). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added the exact figure to the discussion of the second SPS burn.

• "A slight overburn" Is this referring to the engines firing for longer, temperature heating up in the cabin, or that the capsule landed 8.6 miles from its target? It's not clear what an overburn is.

Rephrased.

Since this is about the longer engine burn, it should be moved back to earlier in the paragraph. The paragraph mentions the longer engine burn, the good environmental controls, and goes back to the longer engine burn. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "This discrepancy happened not because of the performance of the guidance system (which was exemplary), but because the burn had been controlled from Earth" Expand on how the Earth-controlled burn caused the fast and shallow reentry, since it's not really clear why the on-board guidance system wouldn't be controlling the burn.

According to the press kit, it was to be controlled by the AGS. It's not clear why the ground cut it off.

• "Von Braun spoke of the mission as "an expert launching all the way through, from lift-off exactly on time to performance of every single stage."" What's the context on this? Is Von Braun complimenting the mission, or is it that Von Braun is being complimented.

He is quoted as saying that. I don't think it's unclear that he's praising the mission.

Who is the expert being referenced in this quote? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Expert is an adjective, not a noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Phillips, Bilstein, and Mueller statements all say effectively the same thing, that the successful Apollo 4 mission gave NASA personnel the confidence that the Apollo program would continue. The Phillips quote is particularly long but is mostly him just heaping praise on the Apollo 4 mission. I think the quotes could all be referenced and paraphrased, and just state that Apollo 4's success increased morale and confidence throughout NASA.

I think quotations add more than paraphrasing. It's what people said. Yes, it was for public consumption, but still they said it.

I would at least remove the Bilstein quote then; it is a historian agreeing with Phillips. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I cut the Phillips one instead. We don't need three NASA officials.

• I don't think its current, but here is a photo of the capsule.

I'd rather not spare the space, the historic NASA photos are more important to have.

Fair enough Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "on each of the Apollo missions that followed" Depends on if you count Apollo–Soyuz or the Skylab missions as Apollo missions, but they didn't use the Saturn V.

They were not Apollo missions. I'll change to "Apollo program missions".

• "Although the Saturn V's stages gave more trouble than on Apollo 4" Maybe say what happened on Apollo 6? Something like "Although Apollo 6 experience pogo oscillation during its first stage and had an early second-stage engine shutdown, it was decided..."

  I see that this was addressed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Brooks, Grimwood, and Swenson quote block extends into the references section. It doesn't say anything that wasn't already discussed in the prose above. I would remove it to avoid crowding the References section.

I think it's an important third party big-picture view of the mission and should remain.

Why not incorporate it into the prose of the article then? Readers won't be looking to the references section to find that information. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I think quote boxes have their place and this is one place it's appropriate.

• "The CM is currently on display at Stennis's official visitor center" I would add when the CM was put on display at the Infinity Science Center (2016, according to the reference). Additionally, it should say that it's the Stennis Space Center visitor center, not just Stennis's visitor center.

  I made this change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I've addressed all your points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Just updated this with a few extra points and some responses. I'm traveling for the long weekend, so apologies in advance if I don't get back to your points for a few days. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Enjoy your trip. I've addressed your points.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice work on this article. While we still disagree on some points, I think this article is well-done, informative, and up to FA standards. Happy to support it! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Z1720 - pass

Version reviewed, spot checks not done.

• I'm a little concerned that fn 2 (an explanatory footnote) is not cited.
• Fn3: The author seems to call the page the "Master Satellite List" on this list
• Fn16: I think "NASA History Division" is the website publisher, or at least should be added to the cite in some way.
• Fn27: "CH9-5" should probably be "Ch. 9-5" to be consistent with the Benson refs.
• Why is only one website listed under "websites", where there are others used as sources? For consistency, either all websites should be listed there or the section should be removed.

I have no concerns with the quality of the sources. Z1720 (talk) 00:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I've removed ref 2 and done what you suggested with the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Z1720 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry for missing this. My concerns have been addressed so it passes my source review. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 October 2021 [46].

---

2014 FIFA World Cup Final

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the 2014 edition of the FIFA World Cup, the most prestigious tournament in football, as well as one of the most-watched sporting events in the world. The 2014 tournament featured a few surprises, most notably Germany's 7–1 demolition of the hosts Brazil in the semi-final, which is covered in this article's "Route to the final" section. The final itself was between two old hands, Germany vs Argentina, with five wins between them and meeting in their third final. As ever, any and all comments welcome and I'm happy to return the favour with reviews on other FACs. Just let me know!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "who qualified through the qualification" maybe not so great repetition-wise.

  Changed to "emerged from".  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "found himself" perhaps not so encyclopedic.

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "which Germny broke" typo.

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I can imagine "collected ... on his chest" being queried...

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• The one ref in the infobox could be moved to the main body if the temp/humidity etc was mentioned there.

  Done. I've also done the same trick re the weather 6.5 km away as at 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final, given that we don't seem to have an reliable "sunny" / "fair" / "cloudy" source from the stadium.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "edition of the FIFA World Cup" maybe pipe FIFA out of here so we don't have three FIFAs in one sentence.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The 32nd and final spot" only just thought, realistically it was the 1st slot wasn't it?

  OK, I've reordered it to mention Brazil first.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the Maracanã Stadium.[13][14] The stadium" repeat of stadium?

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "third special ball" special?

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Thomas Müller took the" no need to repeat Thomas.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "after a headbutt on" after he headbutted....

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "their first since 1990 and their first since" repetitive.

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "by Lionel Messi'had been" something odd here.

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "But it was..." not sure if we're supposed to start sentences with But...

  I think I was told in a previous FAC that it's OK these days. I've reworded to include a "however" anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• " a 3–2 win and the group win" win win repeat.

  Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "closing ceremony" link, general or specific?

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "32 of the dancers wearing dresses decorated in the colours of the 32 participating" 32 of the dancers wearing dresses in the colours of each of the participating...

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "studs-first tackle" does the world know what a "studs-first tackle" is?

  I've removed "studs-first", the prose can probably stand without it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "followed by a break upfield by" overlinked.

  You made the same point at the GAN, and I thought it was OK in this instance, because the two links point to different terms in the glossary.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any chance we can find a source describing the kit of the teams?

  I have switched to the BBC source for the "Report" link. I've also spent some time today fiddling around with the formation SVG so that it conforms with the 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1 setups indicated by the BBC.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Note: FA co-ords like to see where the positions of the players are referenced.... Might be as simple as the BBC "team lineup" page, but forewarned is forearmed...

  I have switched to the BBC source for the "Report" link.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder if we need to do a quick look around for foreign coverage of the final for the post-match section? I know we have reactions of the players/managers, but per our experiences on the Euro finals, we should look to include German and Argentine (as a minimum) press reactions, and better still, other worldwide reactions?

  I've added some comments about German and Argentine press. NOt sure about any others, although I did find a nugget about a Chinese photographer winning a prize for a post-match snap of Messi eyeing the trophy.

• "Guinness World Records state" italics.

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that's it for now, mostly trivial stuff I should have picked up before (but hey, GAN isn't FAC), however the media reaction thing which we saw being an issue at the 1968 Euro final is something we need to consider here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I think I've looked at all your points now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

My concerns addressed, both at the GAN and here so I'm happy to support this now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:44, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• the Americas. - you link here, but our article is just at Americas. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• becoming the third successive World Cup holders to be eliminated in the group phase. - maybe worth mentioning who defeated them there? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have added the two teams that beat them to the lead. ALthough in fact, these are not the same two teams that qualified for the next round; I have given the full detail on this down in the Background section.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• Perhaps mention a little more about the groups, "groups of four with teams playing each other once", I'd like to see some info, either saying "round-robin", or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• spots through qualifying rounds - pipes to redirect Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• +Teamgeist Berlin (2006) and the Jo'bulani - our articles don't have these spellings. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have removed the MOS:TM + sign from the Teamgeist. As for Jo'bulani, I think that's correct... our article at Adidas Jabulani mentions that name as the ball used for the final, in its "Colouring" section.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• The images are a little disappointing, do we not have a suitable image of Mario Götze or Nicola Rizzoli? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• There's loads of commons images com:Category:Final of the 2014 FIFA World Cup which could be incorporated IMO. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  I have added images to First half, Second half and Extra time. That doesn't really leave room for a pic of the ref, but we do now have two angles of Gotze scoring his goal.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is Chengdong Economic Daily the same as Economic Daily? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure to be honest, it seems quite difficult to find information on what it is. I've realised that it should have been the Chengdu Economic Daily, I copied that wrong. It's quite possible it is linked to the National Business Daily, which is apparently published by a Chengdu Daily Newspaper Group. That would suggest it's separate from the main Economic Daily, but again can we be certain? I've corrected the error anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Statistics table needs a header. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

• You have a reference to the Daily Mirror, is this suitable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  Per WP:DAILYMIRROR, this is not explicitly blacklisted, as there was "no consensus" in RS discussions. My take is that for a quick comment about the Argentine press putting pictures of Messi on their front cover it's probably safe enough, but let me know if you think it's no good.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Happy to support on this one, I've left some comments above, but nothing really preventing a support. I'd like to see some more images, especially with the amount open on commons. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Lee Vilenski: I have had a look at all your points I think. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude

• "Gonzalo Higuaín had a chance to score for Argentina in the first half, when he was one-on-one....." - you either don't need that comma or else you need one after Neuer to end the clause. I'm inclined towards the former

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The stadium underwent an extensive rebuild prior the 2014 World Cup" - the word "to" is missing

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Portugal's Pepe was shown a red card in five minutes later" - the word "in" should not be there

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Germany's last group game was against the US" => "Germany's last group game was against the U.S."

  Actually, per MOS:USA, one can write it either with or without dots at one's discretion. And "US" would actually be mandated if we were also talking of the UK or the USSR in the same sentence. But actually, I've decided the abbreviation isn't really necessary anyway so I've expanded it out to "United States".  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "with the match played on 30 June at the at the Estádio Beira-Rio in Porto Alegre" - bit of a stutter in that sentence

  Good grief!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "There was no goals during normal time" => "There were no goals during normal time"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Argentina played the Netherlands in the semi-final, in a game on 9 July" => "Argentina played the Netherlands in the semi-final on 9 July"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The next three kicks, by Messi, Arjen Robben and Ezequiel Garay were" - needs a comma after Garay to close the clause started by the one after "kicks"

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• "included singers Carlinhos Brown, Wyclef Jean, Alexandre Pires, Ivete Sangalo and guitarist Carlos Santana" => "included singers Carlinhos Brown, Wyclef Jean, Alexandre Pires and Ivete Sangalo and guitarist Carlos Santana"

  Done, although I've amended the second "and" to be an "as well as" so it doesn't sound repetitive

• " Vladimir Putin – whose country hosted the next World Cup," - clause starts with a dash and ends with a comma, the two should match

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Higuain is spelt wrong early in the second half

  Done (and diacritics added elsewhere where they were missing).  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the post-match section there's a random apostrophe after Der Spiegel

  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's what I got - nice work. An enjoyable read and brought back good memories of watching the 7-1 game in the corporate hospitality suite at the Emirates Stadium (true story :-)) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Amazing. I watched that on the telly and my brain had literally exploded, literally, pieces everywhere, before half-time. Corporate hospitality is the way forward....!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yep, me too. I had a mate who couldn't watch the game, and I was updating him with the score over WhatsApp. When I started saying 2-0, 3-0, 4-0, 5-0 he basically thought I was winding him up.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I think I've looked at all your points now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

source review - pass

Will conduct. 14:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is Daily Mirror really a high-quality RS?
• No major formatting issues noted

Spot checks:

• " Their second game was against Iran at the Estádio Mineirão in Belo Horizonte on 21 June. Barney Ronay of The Guardian described Iran as producing a "stirring performance against an Argentina team of all the attacking talents", and the match remained goalless until the 90th minute" - checks out
• "The two sides had met each other six times previously in the World Cup," - checks out
• "Messi was awarded the Golden Ball, FIFA's award for whom they considered the tournament's best player, while Neuer was given the Golden Glove for best goalkeeper" -
• "Germany were forced to make a late change to their line-up when Khedira sustained a calf injury during the warm-up prior to the match" - checks out.

So my only real question is if Daily Mirror is high-quality enough for FA usage. Hog Farm _Talk 04:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Lee also raised this issue above, and I did say at the time that per WP:DAILYMIRROR this is not formally deprecated (as the Mail or the Sun would be), and the statement is fairly uncontroversial. Since it's come up twice now though, I've hunted around to switch it out and I've managed to now cite directly to all the individual papers that feature Messi on the front page. So hopefully that's OK for you. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• File:Germany and Argentina face off in the final of the World Cup 2014 -2014-07-13 (6).jpg - appears suitably licensed and has alt text.
• File:Deutsches Fußballmuseum 2015 3.jpg - ditto.
• File:CFK y Angela Merkel 2.jpg - ditto.
• File:Cámaras - Acción - 140713-8653-jikatu (14479326838).jpg - ditto, perhaps caption could use "nine" instead of "9".
• File:Germany and Argentina face off in the final of the World Cup 2014 -2014-07-13 (37).jpg - license and alt text fine, why are we using upright=1.2 here though?

  I initially made the image above this one 1.2 for clarity, because that one is taken from some distance and the players looked very small at the normal size; I then made this one 1.2 more to match the other one than anything else, which isn't really necessary. So I've pushed this image back to normal size but left File:Cámaras - Acción - 140713-8653-jikatu (14479326838).jpg as 1.2.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Goldegotze.jpg - appears suitably licensed and has alt text.
• {{Football kit}} supports alt text so you could describe each one in words.
• File:GER-ARG 2014-07-13.svg - could use alt text.
• File:Philipp Lahm lifts the 2014 FIFA World Cup.jpg - appears suitably licensed and has alt text.

Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: all looked at, including a tweak and reply to your upright point above.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, good, I'm happy with the changes. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Igordebraga

• Support Great job on an article I even thought of working on once, having helped the preceding national embarrassment become a GA. igordebraga ≠ 05:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, Igordebraga, much appreciated!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - just checking on the status of this nomination. It's been open for almost a month now, and has four supports plus the usual source and image checks. Is there anything that's holding up its promotion? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru, nothing stands out, I think just sit tight while a coord walks through it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2021 [47].

---

Ham House

Nominator(s): Isaksenk (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a 17th-century stately home which sits along the Thames on the outskirts of London. The house and its gardens form a rare picture of the style of the courts of Charles I and II, as the family who owned the property sought (over the centuries) to preserve the grandeur of the era. Over the last year, a group of National Trust volunteers, who would normally be sharing the stories of the house with visitors, have spent the time in lockdown documenting the details of the house, gardens, collections and the people who lived there. As a highly-researched property, there is a wealth of academic literature upon which to draw, and we have done our best to provide a complete survey of the property and the people who created it. Isaksenk (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review—pass

You're lucky that in UK there is freedom of panorama for publicly accessible interiors. In some pictures there are also artistic works visible, but all of them look to be either de minimis, old enough to be out of copyright, or both. However, there are some harv errors in the references that need to be fixed. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Buidhe I believe the harv errors are addressed now, but please let me know if I've misunderstood.Isaksenk (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it looks like it's been fixed. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment

I've only browsed, but the section on the National Trust could be bulked up. It would be helpful to include stuff about tourism (it receives ~70,000 visitors a year), conservation of the building and collections, curation and interpretation (eg: exhibitions, grants), etc. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Richard Nevell appreciate your feedback. We didn't delve too deeply into topics around the current curation & experience as we wanted to avoid any whiff of promotion, given that we are a group of NT volunteers at the house. We could expand this section, but wanted to err on the side of caution. However, willing to take advice on that. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That approach makes a lot of sense. It might be worth preparing some text which could be added in and seeing what the FAC crowd think. The declaration at the start of the nomination means the editing community can decide if text is neutral or promotional. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would agree with Richard. A short additional paragraph on the end of "National Trust" covering what happens at the property right now would seem to be in order. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard and Gog the Mild I suspect that a statement regarding current curation, conservation efforts and exhibitions would require the involvement of NT HQ - not something I am able to provide in short order unfortunately. Isaksenk (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

You may be looking too deeply into this. Sadly you can't use the NT's own web site or guide to the house as it would be a primary source, but I don't think that we are asking for much more than is probably in there. (I haven't looked.). But is there not a local council guide or similar? ("Stately Homes in Greater London" or whatever.) Or something in a reputable newspaper. The fact that the information is lifted from NT material, possibly a press release, doesn't matter; the editorial control and independence makes it a secondary source. So long as it is "reliable" in Wikipedia terms, you can cite to it. Does that help? Richard Nevell may have a different view. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a great believer in the imprimatur conveyed by local press repeating a press release. Obviously, when there is opposition to plans, as there so often is with the NT, that is where they come into their own. One thing I'd like to know is if there is any RS coverage of the horrible accident a few years back, when a falling temporary Lely reproduction took out a mantelpiece-full of oriental porcelain. That won't be on the NT website, we may be sure. In the case of the easily accessible visitor figures (see current bottom), the only feasible source is the NT themselves, & it is fine to use them. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild Most recent press dwells on more specific topics such as the slavery & colonialism report, the "siesta" policy and our resident cat. I did find this article which does actually address the topic of curation, but obviously it's more of a historical survey. I'm aware of the conservation projects due to the volunteer communications, but of course it's not something for which I can provide sources. I'm not sure what else to offer. Isaksenk (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I’ve added in the 2018/19 visitor numbers. I think Richard N is quite right in thinking we should have them, as they are an important element of the Trust’s stewardship. I’ve used the Annual Report as the source. I appreciate that some may think this a primary source, which it clearly is, but I think it is acceptable. It is the published record of the Trust’s yearly activities, signed off by its management board, and independently audited by the Trust’s auditors. It think it should therefore meet the requirement for reliability. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Good - "primary" is a non-issue, as the NT is the only possible source for visitor numbers, and recycling them through any secondary source will only reduce their reliability. It's the same with the sizes of paintings, as owners don't let passing art historians bring their own ladders and tape measures. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

I reviewed the article for GAN and thought then and think now that what emerged was ready for FAC. At 8,600 words it's quite a biggie for an article on a single house (and garden) but I don't see any superfluous material. I press-ganged my friend and colleague KJP1 into adding his input at GAN, and I look forward to his expert comments here, but from my own, less expert but greatly interested, viewpoint this is a first-class article, well written, comprehensive without going into too much detail, balanced, well proportioned and beautifully illustrated. It has been no hardship whatever to reread it for the current review – quite the opposite. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 19:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tim riley we do appreciate your guidance and support. Isaksenk (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from KJP1

I had the pleasure of commenting on this article at Peer Review/GA and Isaksenk and their Ham House colleagues have done a superb job of taking a detailed, but weakly-sourced, article to the excellent state it is now in. I shall comment shortly and hope other editors will join in reviewing an excellent collaborative effort. KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC) As indicated above, I commented on this at peer review and at GA and, for disclosure, made some minor edits myself. I think it is a grand article that fully warrants FA status. The editors, led by Isaksenk, who have worked on it have created a well-written and comprehensive study, that is also well-illustrated and well-cited, which gives readers an excellent overview of the house, its history, architecture, and its collection, which is arguably more important than the house itself. On the matter of citations, there are just three areas where I think further citation would be helpful:

• Elizabeth and John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale - the third para. ends with a sentence on jib doors. I think this would benefit from a cite;
• North Drawing Room - the third para. ends with a sentence on the popularity of Four Seasons tapestries. Again, a cite would be good.
• Queen's Apartments - be good to end with a cite. I would hope these can be quite easily picked up from existing Sources, probably Rowell.

As to other comments, there is very little. I think the suggestion above to add a bit more on the National Trust's ownership is excellent. Visitors numbers/conservation/research/etc. I do not think it needs to be that much, and it would fit well at the end of the History section. I'd be pleased to take a look at any suggested wording, in order to address any perception of "promotion". Aside from that, nothing, except a regret that the sources do not make it possible to say a little more on the architect of the first building, and the potential involvement of the Smythsons. I would add thanks to retired editor User:Hchc2009 for their excellent plan. A most helpful addition. Overall, it is a splendid article, and a fine addition to Wikipedia's canon on important buildings. Isaksenk and their fellow editors should be proud and I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks KJP1 your support is greatly appreciated. I believe I've now addressed the 3 points above and have also made a small expansion to the end of the History section with the references at my immediate disposal. If more is desired, I'll need to head to the library to seek additional sources. That will take some time however, as my schedule is a bit full at present. Happy to take advice on remaining gaps. Isaksenk (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that looks good. The only bit I might add is visitor numbers but, oddly, I can’t find it in my usual source, [48]. That said, the 2019/20 numbers will be so atypical that they may not add much. Perhaps Richard’s 2009 number? All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Kavyansh.Singh

Viewing Cullen House on the main page as today's featured article reminded me of this one. I gave some minor comments in its peer review, and was astonished by this article's comprehensiveness. The only major issue was citations, which now seems to be tackled. The article is well written and well researched, appropriately illustrated, and is neutral. You and your team have done a great job of improving this article, and I am more than happy to add my support for promotion of this article as a Featured article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Formatting comments - Resolved

• The titles of works should be in title format, eg Cripps.

Sorry, but I don't understand what's being requested here. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, in Cripps for example "biography" should have an upper case "B". That is the only case I can find in Sources, but in References a few upper case letters could usefully be inserted for the sake of consistency. Eg in cites 52, 100, 152. Does that help? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you Gog the Mild. However I assume that references to articles, such as cites 234 and beyond can remain as they are? Isaksenk (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

No. They should adhere to MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild OK, I think I've addressed them all now. Thanks.Isaksenk (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Malden needs a publisher, a publisher location, an OCLC and a page range.

Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sudeley - no publisher location?

Huntingdon Library indicates London, but publisher unknown. Should publisher just remain blank? Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, good question. Let's try that. (Your source reviewer may prefer "Publisher not identified".)

• Waterhouse: publisher location should be formatted 'New Haven, US; London, not "New Haven, US and London".

Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cite 21: "p." → 'pp'.

Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly cites 28, 59 and others.

I believe I've corrected all of them now. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why are some works listed in References rather than Sources?

I'm a little unclear as to the best approach for referencing format. I captured all books and journal articles used on the References section into the Sources list. I did not include other sources such as websites/online news articles. Should those also be included in the Sources section? Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No, that is acceptable. Drives me crazy, but it is acceptable.

• Cite 4: no ISSN or JSTOR identifier?

That journal does not appear to be available on JSTOR. I've added the ISSN, but I cannot access the journal myself in order to ascertain page numbers. It was part of the original article - not something that I added. I'd need to get to the BL to determine precise citations. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cite 190: number ranges should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens.

I believe another editor has used a script to address all the problematic hyphens. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bradley needs a page range.

Unable to address at this time - I'd need to get to the BL to determine precise citations. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Now completed Isaksenk (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: this is not a full source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Isaksenk, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild I've been able to address a few now, and will be able to return to this at the weekend. We appreciate your guidance.Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I have responded to a couple of your queries. (My brother's family visited on Sunday on the back of my recommendation!) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I've addressed those remaining comments that I'm able to address at this time. Thank you for your feedback. I do hope your family had a pleasant visit. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Iazyges - pass

• May wish to move the cited websites into a bibliography section and use sfn's, rather than whole cites, in the body.
• "Estates of the Tollemache Family of Ham House in Kingston upon Thames, Ham, Petersham and elsewhere: Records, 14th cent–1945". Surrey History Centre. Retrieved 5 September 2012." is a dead link.

Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Airs, Malcolm (1998)" link gives a date of 1995 by WorldCat, either use a 1995 orig-year parameter as used in other cites or switch ISBN to 9781858338330.

Done.

• "Greeves, Lydia (2008)" link gives publisher as Pavilion Books, may wish to switch the link to WorldCat, as it gives the correct publisher and the Google book is not accessible.

Done.

• "Ham House, Surrey. Swindon, Wiltshire: The National Trust. 2009" ISBN brings up the original year of 1992/1995, and 1997 and 2005 editions; possibly a fault of WorldCat, but double-check that the ISBN is correct.

Iazyges I have a copy of the 2009 version, which is copyrighted 1995. The ISBN on the inside cover is 978 1 54359 172 6, but when I try those digits, it generates a checksum. I don't know what to do with that. Isaksenk (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That is... odd. It seems to be an invalid ISBN; it is suggested on the CS1 help page to check the cover and front matter to see if one IBSN is different from the other. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Iazyges The back cover has the number 978 1 84359 172 6, which, as you note above, doesn't actually reference the 2009 reprint. Happy to proceed as you advise. Isaksenk (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly weird, but nothing can really be done about it. Suggest retaining current ISBN as least bad option. Passing the source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Jackson-Stops, Gervase (1979)" link is broken; this link works.

Done.

• "Rowell, Christopher, ed. (2013)" may wish to switch the link to this, as this WorldCat entry contains more details, including the date.

Done.

• "Sudeley, Ada (1890)" I'm generally against inserting "publisher unknown" in the bibliography, but you may wish to do so.

Done.

• "Summerson, John (1955)" I'm unable to find the source of the Harmondsworth, Middlesex location for the 1955 edition? I can only find it in a 1993 edition; suggest removing location unless I'm missing something.

Done.

• "Ward, Evelyn Svec (1953)" insert location of Cleveland, US.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod, part 1

• I've enjoyed looking at this less than I expected. It repeats on a grander scale the usual faults of WP articles on historic houses, in particular too much on the family history and too little on the house.
• It would be tempting to suggest putting all the former, except a brief summary, below the latter.

Done - hopefully in a fashion that enjoys support. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The family history would be easier to follow if people's dates were given when they are first mentioned, and dates given to sentences like: "Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart succeeded to the title on his father's death." and "Wilbraham was aged 60 when he inherited the title.", even if the date is in the previous section.

Done - again, hopefully in a style that makes the choronology easier to follow. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod more clarity is required before I can address this request, specifically on these points:

• What format is required, both for those with known dates as well as those with uncertain dates?
• Are references for the dates required?
• Is it only first mention, or when a mention is repeated? Only for repeats in a later section?
• Only family members, or other persons related to the story, like Charles I, Adrian Vanson or Ada Sudeley?
• We know from our research that there are some date conflicts between Pritchard & Rowell - how to address those circumstances?

If there is a style guide that addresses all these items, please point me to it. Otherwise, please state your requirements so I can proceed to address them. Isaksenk (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• The treatment of the exterior, which I see had to be prodded for at PR, is perfunctory.

Done - as far as the sources available to us allow. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The linking seems to give up almost completely about half-way through (during the rooms, until the filmography); there must a good 30-40 links missing. Even glaringly obvious ones like Mortlake Tapestry Works and Antonio Verrio are missing, but lots more.

Done - I thinking the blue-linking is now complete. Many thanks for those you picked up yourself. I'm sure a few more have been missed. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• On points raised above, I agree pre-Covid visitor figures should be given, & I'm fine with the films & tv.

Done - visitor numbers now in and cited. We agree that the media appearances, although though don't find favour with all - including me! - should remain. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• More later, but I won't do a full read through until work is done on the links. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod - Thanks very much indeed for the initial comments. First, you make a very good point re. the links. I’ve sought to address this and ended up bluelinking some 131 words/names/terms where I thought such links would help the reader. I don’t actually think I’ve madly over-linked, which rather makes your point! A few specific queries:

• Soho Tapestry Works - I can’t find anything better for this than Soho. Any ideas? - John_Vanderbank#Early_life seems best. Like Lambeth, I think these were breakaways from Mortlake. I'd do a redirect there for now. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Four Seasons decorative motif - I can’t find anything appropriate, although it does generate quite a lot of links. Thoughts? - Hmm Season#Four-season_calendar_reckoning doesn't help much. At Personification (itself a possibility), I used Deities and personifications of seasons also not much help. Really we need something like Four_continents#Iconography. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Flemish Baroque painting was the best I could find for the Flemish leatherwork in the Marble Dining Room. Better? - Leather wallpaper, the right subject, perhaps not the best title. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• On the actual link you mention, Flemish_Baroque_painting#Still_life_and_animal_painting would be best I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Secretary desk didn’t seem quite right for escritoire/secretaire. Is there better? -Probably not. If it doesn't have shelves above Writing desk may be better. All our furniture articles are terrible. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• Pietra paesina has a link on the Italian Wiki but Ruin marble was the best I could find on ours. Ideas? - Is it natural formations? Or landscape Pietra dura? These seem the closest. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, natural, so yes, ruin marble is right. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Second, on your comments on the architecture of the house, you again make a fair point, although I think good use has been made of the available sources. I was surprised at the paucity of material available in the books I have. Pevsner was useful, but the Historic England listing, as an example, is oddly brief - a single, short, paragraph - for what it describes as an “important” Grade I listed building. Any other sources on the building which you can suggest would be much appreciated. I know User:Isaksenk will find your initial comments/suggestions of great help and we look forward to more. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• More:
• "is claimed by the Trust to be "a rare survival of 17th-century luxury and taste." - surely everybody agrees on this.

Johnbod This was not included as a response to a dispute, but rather a fact of which most visitors are unaware. Moreover, it's the starting point for notability and a key reason that the Trust decided to accept the property into its portfolio. If you require an alternative statement or complete removal, please provide more-precise guidance. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. I think what Johnbod is saying here is that the claim Ham is a rare survival is so uncontroversial and so generally accepted that it does not need the qualifier of the Trust saying it. I've tweaked the wording which I think will work. KJP1 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it was especially "claimed" that provoked the comment, as that implies there is controversy or doubt. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• "move between the courts at Richmond, Hampton, London and Windsor as his role required" - can't see the sources, but normally there is only one "court" per person. Richmond and Hampton seem to have been mostly the bases of James' sons at this time, which perhaps Vavasour needed to keep an eye on. Maybe "move between the palaces at Richmond, Hampton, London and Windsor as his court role required"

Done Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Do we know who actually paid for the first construction? James I or Vavasour? Charlton House was built over the same years by James for Prince Henry and his tutor, though the tutor seems to have hung on to it (our article is not very clear on this).

Johnbod Rowell asserts that Vavasour was investing in the accumulation of land in the vicinity of Petersham during the early 1600s, but the source is the Tollemache family papers. He references a debate about the original motivation for the construction - some sources allege that the house was originally intended for Henry, Prince of Wales, but Rowell is skeptical. I cannot respond further without access to the BL. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• "When her father died in 1655 Elizabeth became 2nd Countess of Dysart...", also the earl's coronet mentioned in the previous para. Her father being raised to the peerage has not been mentioned (rather confusingly, there are 3 possible dates for this). Maybe slip it in here, or when the coronet is mentioned.

Johnbod The earldom was conferred in 1643, but did not pass the Great Seal until 1651 according to Rowell, p. 116. After Elizabeth inherited the title, new letters patent were granted in 1670. Unfortunately Rowell does not provide a citation, so I cannot elaborate further at this time. What detail and dates are required for clarity in the section on William Murray? Isaksenk (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Since the article does not at present say so, you need to explain that he was (or was thought be by the family) made an earl before his death - the details can be skipped here, as his bio covers them. You might also explain that as a Scottish peerage his daughter could inherit it. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

KJP1 has described the original grant of the peerage, to which I have added a note on the dating. Isaksenk (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The bedchamber itself was being referred to as "the Queen's Bedchamber" in 1674 which suggests that the Queen, Catherine of Braganza, a friend of Elizabeth's, had occupied it at least once." - Simon Jenkins (1,000 Best Houses", p. 495), says the visit was anticipated but "is believed never to have happened".

Johnbod I have been told by house managers that court records suggest she did visit the house, but that there is no evidence of a visit after the completion of the State Apartments. Rowell however states on page 85 that she did visit in 1674, soon after the completion, but does not provide a citation. So, without further primary source research I can't provide a more-definitive response. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

So, are you happy with the current wording? I hope not. Can you think of an alternative one? Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this one is now resolved? KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Works for me KJP1. I'll ask the house manager if she can get any further clarity from Rowell on his assertion. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I found Rowell's citation elsewhere, on p. 122. From the Buckminster Park Archives, he has a disbursement records for the 2 cooks working in the kitchen during the Queen's visit in 1674. So while it doesn't proved that she stayed, she apparently used the suite after its completion. KJP1 - do we want to retain Jenkins' statement? Isaksenk (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Isaksenk - Have tweaked the footnote to reflect the ambiguity. That should work. Glad to be able to get back to this. Unfortunately, am in London three days next week - although not with sufficient time for a visit to Ham! - but I do think, subject to your own work commitments, we should be a position to close up the outstanding comments by the weekend. That will leave any further comments from Johnbod to be addressed. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Johnbod Thank you for taking the time to review the article and provide your thoughts and guidance. All feedback is a gift and yours has been extremely helpful. I'm sorry that you've found the article disappointing - we have tried our best to build on the work of previous contributors and tell the story of the property in a balanced and clear way. It's become clear to me that we're never going to be able to satisfy the requirements for FA, given the known gaps in source documentation. But your comments have helped me to realise that our team objective has already been achieved - we set out last year to expand the article to tell the story of the property in a more complete fashion, addressing the points which are most notable from a historical perspective or those which elicit the most questions from visitors. With the work already completed and the generous guidance from reviews such as Tim riley, KJP1, Kavyansh.Singh and others, we've already achieved what we set out to do. I'll now leave it to others to pursue the FA certification, if they wish. Thanks all for your generosity and support. I shall cancel this request for review as soon as I can figure out how to do so. Isaksenk (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Isaksenk, think you should stick with this, after you have brought it so far. JB said "less than...expected", but is now giving clear pointers to further improve so it might become "more than...expected", and a lot are about moving paras around, or expanding emphasis here and there...ie all highly actionable and doable. And I see there is a good team helping also, so have confidence this can be brought over the line. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I think the article is certainly within reach of FA, & I don't believe "known gaps in source documentation" are the issue at all, but perhaps there is flagging enthusiasm. KJP1 has largely fixed the links. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Coord note -- If Isaksenk truly wishes to withdraw the article from FAC then the coords will act on that but given the reviewers' comments I agree that it would be worth sticking with it a bit longer; it is after all just over three weeks old and is, as KJP1 says, within striking distance of the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Response from isaksenk - Appreciate the feedback, but, truly - it will take many months to address the points which have been raised above, not to mention whatever may follow by other contributors. For example:
        • The question of whether Catherine of Braganza visited has long been a topic of debate. I'd need to do extensive research on primary sources to establish what can be asserted.
        • Who paid for the original construction - same as above
        • Providing a clear explanation for the origins and history of the Dysart peerage in the 17C - it's complicated, and again more research needed
        • Vavasour's role at court & relationship with James's sons, including the location of their own courts - more research
        • A request to expand the content on the exterior architecture - more research
        • Reformatting and rearranging all the references to suit the varying request of all the FAC contributors - I'm a relatively-inexperienced editor and sometimes I don't even understand what's being asked in these comments - which requires additional research on my part. Then, to try and get it to a shape that satisfies everyone - significant time investment
        • NT visitor numbers, plus current projects/programmes/etc. - I suspect that this content would require the involvement of NT HQ, which will take significant time and correspondence
        • When we began the project last summer, we also thought about moving the family section below that of the house. However one of the original editors disagreed with the approach, so we chose to compromise on that point.
      • My enthusiasm for the property and its story remains as strong as ever. (I work full time, but give up my Sundays to volunteer at the house, and have been doing so for more than a decade.) The issue is simply time. We relied heavily on Rowell and other key secondary sources to expand this article and the questions being raised now would require many days back in the BL, trawling through Rowell's cites. And since he also had access to the Tollemache family archive, some of those sources will not be available. I'd need to take time off work in order to complete this research and the earliest I'd be able to do so is January. (Work has picked up, and business travel has started again.) It's for that reason that I'm asking for the review to be cancelled. There are many other FAC reviews which would benefit from your guidance. I'm simply unable to address all the concerns raised in a meaningful way. Thanks everyone. Isaksenk (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely appreciate the challenge that juggling real life with an FAC can pose. Obviously, if Isaksenk as nominator wants to withdraw it, that is their choice. But I think it would be a real pity. Like others, I think it is close to FA standard now and all the comments/suggestions received can be actioned. I’d be pleased to try to do so, ideally in conjunction with the nominator. Currently, I have a Real Life issue of my own, as I’m writing this from Spain. While the temperature, and Alhambra views, are delightful, I am without access to any offline sources. If the coordinators are willing to keep it open to, say early November, I’d be pleased to have a go at getting it over the line. And that would give Johnbod, and others, a further opportunity for comments. Whatever the outcome, Isaksenk and their team can be justly proud of their efforts, which have greatly improved the article already. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, personally. Or it could be closed now & re-nominated by you after the mandatory period of 2 weeks or whatever it is. I think the amount of work required is severely overstated by User:Isaksenk above - eg I wasn't asking for "a clear explanation for the origins and history of the Dysart peerage in the 17C", merely a mention that it existed by the time of his death. I should have suggested a draft, but then I did that on the point about Vavasour's role, one that should require no further referencing, and that is also complained about as requiring "more research", which I'd deny. And so on. At the same time, I've been reviewing FACs for well over a decade, & I don't recall ever seeing one with (over a long stretch of the article) such a lack of necessary links; you can't expect that to be overlooked at FAC (not if I'm reviewing anyway). It took KJP1 about 3 hours (taking time off for a well-deserved breakfast) to fix what looks like nearly all of them, & now that appears to be sorted - I added a couple, & may well find more as I read through, which I'll probably do myself. On the family history, another way of doing it, probably the easiest starting where we are, is to keep the top half where it is, as "Builders of the house" or something, then shove the rest, from Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart on to the last Sir Lyonel, below the house description as "Later Tollemache owners" or something. Their masterly inactivity needs covering, but not so high up, if done at this length. Of course, the article has had a vast amount of work and is hugely improved, & I think it's great we got the NT volunteers involved, which I've long thought is something we ought to be doing, or get the staff involved - which I was involved with for Waddesdon Manor, an initiative rather banjaxed by Covid & staff changes. As a local, I've always found the Ham House team especially friendly & helpful, & would thank them for their efforts. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

PS: NT visitor numbers are, I'm fairly sure, available online in the Annual Reports. 2019 is the one we want, obviously. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it took about 2 minutes to find: Ham House 2018/19: 127,195; 2017/18:118,187, page 76 here. Much harder to find what the actual period is, but it seems to be the year to 28 February, so the 2019/20 figures might not be much/at all impacted by Covid. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose While I've tried my best to address the open points raised above, it's clear that I do not understand what's needed to successfully navigate this process. I'll chalk that up to lack of skills and experience. Please accept my request to withdraw the nomination, thank you. Isaksenk (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Acknowledged, Isaksenk. Pls understand it's pretty unusual to archive a FAC with supportive reviews from some experienced editors and no outright opposition to promotion. Johnbod, do I understand that your outstanding points are more than the sort of tidy-up we sometimes allow after promotion to FA? I ask because I could well have three possible courses of action here: 1) archive per the nominator's request; 2) leave open for KJP1 to work on in a week or so; 3) promote if the remaining points are considered minor and could be dealt with post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Or 4) archive now & let KJP1 re-open at a moment of his choosing, as I suggested above - well I suppose that's 1). I can't really answer your question as my read-through comments so far only cover 3 of the 18 screens the article text takes on my m/c. Apart from a possible rearrangement of sections - very quick to do if agreed, and hoping more on the exterior can be sourced, they are individually pretty minor, but there may be a lot of them, I just can't tell. If it's left open I can carry on compiling them (or do that at article talk); I should be able to do that in less than a week. I'd like to hear how KJP1 feels. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Ian Rose. I've decided to continue with the review, to ensure that the content is as accurate as possible. Please note though that I will not respond to comments offered with taunts and ridicule. Finally, as said above, it will be some time before I'll be able to conduct additional research for the purpose of expanding certain topics. Please let me know if that's acceptable. Isaksenk (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Great news. There is obviously a lot of goodwill towards towards the work so far and this candidacy in the comments above. Ceoil (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Great news indeed. I’m confident that it will be possible to get this one over the line. Ian Rose, Ian, we will likely need a little more time which I hope will be acceptable. I think the key outstanding issues are:

• A few formatting/citation issues;
• A little more on the NT’s ownership/activities/visitor numbers etc.;
• A little more on the external architecture, if it can be squeezed from the sources. I can certainly check the Jenkins, which I’d not realised hadn’t been used;
• Perhaps the biggest, what to do about the Dysarts? Johnbod is right, the major contribution of the later Earls, with the possible exception of the 4th, was to do very little. It is that inactivity, masterful or not!, which preserved the house and contents in their remarkably unaltered state. So, should we flip the History and the Architecture? Leave as is, perhaps combining some of the latter earls’ entries? Or, try a split - The Builders of the House - The House, contents and grounds - The later Dysarts and their successors? I’ve no particular preference, but I can understand the view that the stretch from, say, the 5th Earl to Sir Lyonel and thence to the NT, might sit better as a conclusion? That said, I tried the House before the History at Chartwell and there was a strong view at both PR and FAC that History should come first. I’m very happy to go with the nominator’s view. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Only just seen the alarums and excursions above. I'm relieved that the nominator is going ahead, and I remain a firm supporter. Tim riley talk 13:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• Continuing read through:
• No link for Earl of Dysart - the problem raised re the grant of this not being mentioned remains. It might also be explained that it was because it was a Scottish peerage that Elizabeth inherited it in her own right.

Johnbod - hopefully, this one, and the linked one above, are now sorted. KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Another benefit of transforming the house from single to double-pile" - last bit linked to List of house types, which is resolutely American, dealing with small early types there, like Single- and double-pen architecture and Shotgun house. I don't think these terms are common dealing with English architecture, & it would be better to explain what is meant rather than using this link.

Johnbod On p. 100, Rowell states "By adding an entirely new range...a fashionable double-pile house was effectively created." I'll defer to others with deeper expertise however. Isaksenk (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. But I think the link, though it does contain the information, requires too much hunting around Colonial America for the reader, & it would be better just to slip in "two rooms deep" or similar in there. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod - Agreed. Let me work up a sentence on single/double pile and I’ll slot it in. If I could only find my Pevsner Architectural Glossary, I’d just lift a quote. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Done - with a sentence cribbed from Curl. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Charlotte died, childless, in 1789 and although Lionel remarried he remained without an heir.[75] When this became apparent, the families of his surviving sisters, Louisa and Jane, reverted to the family name of Tollemache in anticipation of potential succession. Lionel's second marriage in 1791 to Magdalene Lewis, the sister of his brother Wilbraham's wife, also produced no children.[73] On his death in 1799 his brother, Wilbraham became the 6th Earl of Dysart.[76]" - repetition of the childless 2nd marriage. Should be rejigged more compactly.

Done. KJP1 (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

• Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart - he was presumably the one who sent George III (?) away with a flea in his ear when he tried to make a touristic visit? That must be in the sources & is worth mentioning.

Done that one, by way of a footnote. It is a great quote! KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup! Maybe worth putting in the main text, as the contrast with earlier and later attitudes to visitors, royal or otherwise, is striking. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod - You could well be right. Such is my weakness for footnotes, that I sometimes bury information in them that would be better suited in the body. I shall have a go. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Done - now in main body and with stronger citation. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• more later. Johnbod (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Johnbod, part 2

• "He had the wall that separated [the garden of ?] Ham House from the river demolished and replaced by a ha-ha,[81] leaving the gates free-standing. [Where is this exactly? Not the "Back Gate" beyond the wilderness?] Coade stone pineapples were added to decorate the balustrades[82] [again, where are these?] and John Bacon's statue of the river god [at the front of the house], pictured here, also in Coade stone,[43] dates from this period." - needs explaining for clarity I think. If the pineapples at the front are meant, "stone pineapples were added to decorate the pillars supporting the railings at the front" or something might be better. Are we sure those ones aren't "pine cones" though? I know the form at the top resembles a pineapple better, but these are usually called pine cones in art, partly because their use in Western art long predates Colombus. So far, these changes, especially the busts, are the main new thing I've learnt from reading this article, & I think they should be moved to the architecture section. Do we have a more precise date for them? The busts on the front facade are a very striking and effective feature of the house. Though 19th-century, the sources no doubt cover their precedents from periods closer to the rest of the facade - Hampton Court Palace very close by (Card. Wolsey), but also Wollaton Hall (1580s) and Longleat (1570s), & I think this should be mentioned. Were the side walls with busts embracing the circular lawn at the front always there, or do they come from these changes?

Thanks Johnbod. The changes to the wall and gates completed by the 6th Earl were done at the north side of the property, facing the river. The 5th Earl had preferred a more-isolated home, which the 6th Earl opened to the river. Rowell refers twice to Coade stone pineapples (p. 360, 367). Regarding the busts, they are mentioned in the 1679 inventory, although the current arrangement is thought to be the work of the 6th Earl, and his redesign of the north front. The busts aren't pictured in the Hoskins miniature of 1649, but that doesn't prove they weren't there. However, the figure of Charles II certainly post-dates 1660. The flanking walls were in place before the 6th Earl's changes, but apparently some of the busts which had previously been in the front walls were relocated to the front of the house. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what the article now says.

Johnbod OK, I've tried to expand the section with details for clarification. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• National Trust section - do the contents (or most of them) still belong to the V&A? If so, this should be made explicit.

No, the contents were transferred in 1990, when the government relinquished the lease. The NT has sole control of the collections, but continues to collaborate with the V&A. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, but this should be said clearly.

Johnbod Done. Interestingly, the final transfer notice wasn't until 12 years later. Isaksenk (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I still think that the later family history, from the 6th or 7th earl on, should be moved to the bottom. But the National Trust section should I think come after the earlier owners, with a quick summary referring people below for the rest of them.

Done - sort of. We can't see a way to have the NT in the first part, but the latter Dysarts in the second part. Hope that the re-ordering meets with general approval. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The north facade could be described in more detail - the doorway for example. The number of planes in the swelling forward and then backward at the sides of the facade is unusual.

Done - as far as the available sources allow. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• "At the time the remodelling project was considered impressive" - which time, which remodelling? Presumably the Duke's, but clarity needed. New para for this?

I've tweaked the text to clarify. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• "which were changed to black velvet upon the Duke's death in 1682" - just for the mourning period? Now back to crimson, from the photo.

The 1677 inventory referred to crimson velvet and damask wall hangings, of which these are a 19th century recreation. However the 1683 inventory, the year following the Duke's death, notes wall hangings of black velvet. The Brewer watercolour of 1886 appears to show some red textiles, but it's difficult to tell. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are lots of references not after punctuation in these sections.

Johnbod I've looked through all the references and either I don't understand what's required or someone has corrected them already. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• I've added/changed links & done some small rewordings.
• State Bed isn't a great link. ok - Baldachin#State_bed is needed - done
• I know the NT says it but in " 'Le Roi vestu de noir' given to 'Monsr Morre' [Murray] by the King, 'avec sa mollure' [in this very frame]'" - "framed" or "in its frame" is surely a better translation? Maybe reword to just say the frame is thought to be original. The workshop should probably be mentioned (for the painting), as the NT does, since they probably actually painted most or all of this repeat version.

Johnbod OK, I've tried to improve accordingly. Isaksenk (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Colonel The Hon. John Russell (1620–1681)" - aka John Russell (Royalist). Other sources say he died in 1687, & the birth date is approximate. Amazingly, he seems to have no ODNB article (unlike about 20 of his "John Russell" kin). The Wright is much rarer than the other paintings & should probably be bumped up in the list. It's also probably earlier than the Lelys.

Johnbod I've moved it up (thanks for the suggestion) but the 2009 guidebook (edited by Rowell) has the dates for Russell as shown. However if there's another more-relevant source, it should be amended. Isaksenk (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "this room is a very rare survival of a room in the style of Charles I's court" - yes, and it's also (as it is now) very much in a feminine taste, & in the classic lady's closet position with a view over the approach to the house, to keep an eye on comings & goings. Sources must say this.

Johnbod Well, the room itself is really her father's creation - he had the ceiling raised to accommodate Cleyn's frescos and the east-facing window enclosed to reduce light exposure. The furniture and silk damask wall-hangings reflect his daughter's taste, but the rest of the decor is his. Charles I (as I am sure you well know) was the first great art collector of the British monarchy, and therefore a room like this (of which there were similar at Whitehall and other palaces) was apparently fashionable for the men of court for showing off their own art collection. It is believed that William Murray first cultivated an appreciation for art when he went with Charles I to Spain to woo the Infanta in 1623. It's my favourite room in the house and I can go on at length, but difficult for me to judge what's appropriate for this article. Isaksenk (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "his Highgate house" - first we've heard of this. Was this occupied after his marriage, do we know? Link if the London Highgate.

Johnbod Link added. The house was sold not long after Maitland married Elizabeth. Isaksenk (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "a Brighton book dealer, assembled a collection of books for a range of post-war country house sales" - for or "from"?

I think it is “from”, and have amended so. Isaksenk will revert if I’m wrong. KJP1 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• "they reflect the latest innovations from France, where royalty received important visitors in the State Bedchamber, a practice known as a levee." - though the term acquired different meanings in the Anglophone world, this was not at all what Louis XIV's levees (in fact called the lever) were - they were his daily ceremonial getting dressed, normally only attended by a large but very precisely-defined group of upper courtiers, not visitors, plus Alexandre Bontemps, Premier valet de la Chambre du Roi ("First valet of the king's bedchamber"). I'd just drop "a practice known as a levee".

Gone. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The fashion for leather wall decoration originated in Spain and the Spanish Netherlands in the 17th century" - a bit dubious - the Freer Gallery of Art in DC has Spanish pieces apparently forming part of the stuff brought to England by Catherine of Aragon in 1509 - now incorporated in the Peacock Room. Leather wallpaper takes it back to the 9th century in Nth Africa, so "spread from" would be better than "originated".

Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• More later Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Ok, read-through completed, but I will probably have some other comments, soon. There are lots of points left above. The lead is only 3 fairly short paras long; for an article this size it should be four. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support Certainly enough done for this. I think the article has great improved during the FAC process; thanks to those responding! Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Always nice to see English architecture at FAC.

• The lead seems thin. A shortish lead is fine if it covers all major details but I don't think this does. By way of an example, the lead does not tell me what the house looks like or what architectural style it was built in. Is there a reason it was built where it was? There's no detail on the gardens. Who designed them? What do they look like? Do they follow a recognised style?

Done - we hope. Lead expanded to appropriate four-para.s and some more detail added re. garden and pleasure grounds. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• At first glance, I agree with John above that we could stand to lose some of the family history where it's not directly relevant to the house.

Done - we've tried a re-ordering that places greater focus on the house, as the article subject, and moves some of the, less directly relevant, later owners, to the end. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Considering the history contains quite a lot architecture terminology and architectural details about the house, might it be best to re-order the article so that the "architecture" section comes before the history, but after a section about the house's origins?

Done - hopefully in a way that gains support. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Elizabeth is thought to have become acquainted thought by whom? A statement like that needs attribution, and we try to avoid the passive voice anyway.

HJ Mitchell I've attempted to remove the passive voice, but I can't add anything other than the references already there. If it's still objectionable, then I propose removal of the entire sentence. Please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Repairs however did not begin until the 1740s "however" is a word to avoid because it's arguably editorialising (which is a no-no on Wikipedia).

HJ Mitchell Text amended. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• At the front of the house the "Advance", a projecting frontispiece is "Advance" a proper noun?

HJ Mitchell The period documents treat it as a proper noun, which Rowell continues in his text. If it needs to be changed, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• the 4th Earl had kept his son short of money during his lifetime, causing friction in the relationship; he married without his father's consent.[74] His wife, Charlotte, was the youngest illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward Walpole, second son of Robert Walpole, and niece of Horace Walpole who lived near to Ham across the Thames at Strawberry Hill.[74] As an example of what I mean above about family history details not directly relevant to the house: what does this have to do with the house itself?

HJ Mitchell Well, visitors often ask about the connection with Walpole and Strawberry Hill. Moreover, it's strange that the 4th Earl spent an absolute fortune on the estate, yet kept his son short of funds. But if you require it to be deleted, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Lees-Milne saw the melancholy state of the house and grounds but, even though devoid of its contents, the splendour of the underlying estate was immediately apparent You can't use terms like "melancholy" and "splendour" in Wikipedia's voice; that's editorialising. What you can do is attribute them to the person whose opinions they are.

HJ Mitchell Text amended. If still objectionable, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Sir Lyonel and his son donated the house and its grounds to the Trust Did the NT have to persuade them or did they give it up readily?

HJ Mitchell I've mentioned the fact that a lengthy negotiation was required. Isaksenk (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with John that the architecture section lacks detail. We get a brief description of the house's exterior, followed by some appreciation, and then it ends. I'd suggest looking at some of the castles and other old buildings on WP:FA to see how the architecture and history is balanced there.
• in "the English Gothic and Tudor tradition" who are you quoting? It needs inline attribution (or just remove the quote marks if it'll stand on its own as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice).

HJ Mitchell It's a direct lift from Cherry and Pevsner - please advise how this should be amended, or whether to remove entirely.Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be removed. It's a useful bit of information and it's well sourced. The problem is that the quote isn't attributed (ie you don't say who you're quoting). You can fix this by removing the quote marks and making it a statement in Wikipedia's voice, seeing as it's short and factual, or you tell the reader who you're quoting, eg "According to architectural historians Bridget Cherry and Nikolaus Pevsner...". It's up to you which way you go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

OK, done. Isaksenk (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

• The Great Staircase, described by the historian is "Great Staircase" a proper noun?

HJ Mitchell Rowell refers to it repeatedly as such. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• No reference after the last sentence of "Round Gallery" or "North Drawing Room" and several more as we go down.

HJ Mitchell Is every paragraph required to conclude with a reference? I can see some which need additional referencing (like the Round Gallery, which I will sort out) but others, such as the first paragraph of the Queen's Bedchamber are simply a description of the actual room. Do we need to provide a reference for those as well, for something we observe directly on a regular basis? Isaksenk (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Done now, I think. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I feel that there should be more to be said about the gardens and grounds. Are there any particular plants or flowers that are used? What's so significant about them that they're listed? Perhaps quote Historic England's appraisal if it contains any good details. What can be said about the buildings and structures in the gardens or that used to be part of the grounds? For example, you have a photo of Petersham Road Lodge but it's not mentioned in the prose.

Done - I hope. A little more added as an introduction to the garden and pleasure grounds, and Isaksenk has added quite a lot more detail on the structures etc. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• The "Access" section doesn't strike me as encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It should be sufficient to tell the reader where it is (and we include maps and coordinates as well).

HJ Mitchell It was in the original article, so we've left it in place. If it needs to be removed, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Personally I'm ok with these - such sections are common or normal in (near) country house articles. It is also typical of Wikiways that although the infobox gives the exact coordinates in case people want to arrive by parachute, or target the house with a ballistic missile, we don't give the postcode so you can set your satnav. Mind you, the coordinates might be useful if arriving by boat, but then there's no information as to moorings. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I have some concerns about comprehensiveness in places and excess detail in others but that's not impossible to address if you have the source material to hand. The rest of my concerns should be fairly trivial to address. This is very impressive for a first attempt at FA, and the prose is excellent. It's not often I find so little to copy-edit in such a substantial article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Update - as indicated below, we've tried a re-ordering, a lead expansion, and some more of the garden and grounds. Hoping that these meet the need. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod - Harry and Johnbod - Isaksenk and I are working through your comments - for which many thanks. As you say, I think many/most can be relatively easily dealt with and we shall push on with these. Three more major issues:

• The lead - we have looked to expand this, it just needs a little more work;
• The article's structure - having considered your comments, and after discussion, we have tried an alternative structure for the article, in short, The builders / The house / The later owners. This puts the focus of the article more squarely on the house, and we hope it meets with approval;
• The architecture - we have literally scrapped every source currently available to us, to provide as comprehensive a description as possible of the house's external appearance and structure. It is revealing that the Historic England listing is one paragraph long, and that the Pevsner entry devotes twice as much space to the interior and contents as it does to the exterior. We think this reflects the relative importance of the exterior, as opposed to the interior, the furnishings and the contents, which is itself reflected in the coverage. We hope you'll agree that the coverage of the interior and the contents is very comprehensive indeed. We'll continue to look, and any further suggestions would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Support. I believe my comments have been adequately addressed—excellent work! The article exemplifies Wikipedia's best work on the topic of country houses. I still don't feel the access section is encyclopaedic, especially as it's only sourced to the NT website, but I'm not going to oppose over it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks HJ Mitchell we do appreciate your inputs. Isaksenk (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Update and summary - KJP1

To attempt a summary:

• Supports - 3
• Image review - Passed
• Source review - Passed. Ian Rose - I think, as a first-time nominator, Isaksenk will need a sample check on the sources. I'll happily undertake this, indeed I arguably already have, as I reviewed many of the on-line and off-line sources, and they check out. However, I may be thought too closely involved.
• Comments, for which many thanks again - We have sought either to action all comments, e.g. re-ordering the article, or to respond to them where the sources available to us don't allow us to do more, e.g. more discussion of the building's external architecture. We hope that the reviewers are satisfied with the responses. If there are any areas where further work is required, it would be really helpful if these could be flagged. KJP1 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi KJP1 I wouldn't say that you are too involved to do the spot check. Please let me know if you intend to do so or I can list it at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

buidhe - that’s great, then I’ll do that. Johnbod/HJ Mitchell - Johnbod/Harry, it would be good to get your feedback on the changes made. KJP1 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• I'm now supporting, above, thanks fo all your efforts. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Johnbod for your time and efforts on this article. Isaksenk (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Spot check of sources

Further to the Source Review, I have done a spot check of sources as it is the nominator’s first time at FAC. This was actually less burdensome than it might be, despite the impressive range and number of references, as I reviewed the article at Peer Review, and at GA, am familiar with many of the sources, and have access to a considerable number of the off-line ones. I have spot-checked a range of both the on and off-line sources and am fully satisfied they check out appropriately, directly supporting the text. I changed one, and added another, in relation to Kingwood, as it no longer worked, and wasn’t that strong a source. For disclosure, this was actually one I had earlier added myself. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Can't thank you enough KJP1 for your support and contributions! Isaksenk (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

KJP1 Thanks for carrying out the spot check but is it possible to give more details about which sources/references you checked?

Also I noticed that the reference Wilson 1979 is broken in two places. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe - Many thanks. I think the two Wilsons are fixed. My error, 9 instead of 7 in the dates. But just for clarity, I wasn’t doing a source review, as User:Iazyges has already done that. As to more details on the spot checking, I’m not quite sure what is needed. When I did my first source spot check, I listed every one I’d checked. User:Brianboulton helpfully advised that this wasn’t necessary and that I only needed to flag those with issues. If I can remember which one it was, I’ll diff it. I appreciate that this was a few years ago and, if the approach has changed, I can certainly list every one I’ve looked at. But I’m not entirely sure what purpose that would serve? KJP1 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, in my spot checks I say something like "Checked refs 3, 7, 11 and 21 in this version and found no issues" or "Checked all references to sources X, Y and Z, found no issues". I think this is worth stating, because 1) it could be that someone else checks a different set of refs and find issues; 2) it makes it clear how much spot checking was done; 3) if you do find issues than it's clear what the scale of the problem is (i.e. do the sources fail verification in 1/10 refs or 1/2 refs) (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe, Ian Rose - Buidhe, I appreciate that might be your preferred approach, but I’m not sure it is the required approach? If it is, I can and will do it. But it will slow down finalisation of this candidacy, as I have a full working week ahead, and I personally remain unconvinced as to its necessity. Can the coordinators let me know how they would like me to proceed. KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, in this case specifically I was thinking that spot checks are reproducible so it does not matter so much who does them. But if you don't state what you checked then it's not reproducible. (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe - apologies, I understand your logic in this case and will detail the checks I did. It will take a little longer, I’m afraid, as I’ve not got much spare time this week. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Off-line sources spot-checked (with references)

• Beard - 1/180
• Pevsner - 3/48/103/160
• Norwich - 4
• Curl - 8/56
• Summerson - 9
• Jackson-Stops - 13/32/109/231
• Airs - 16
• NT Guide- 17/26/30/77/78/98/137/145/197/199/246
• Fraser - 45
• Binney - 46
• Wilson - 64
• Greeves - 70
• Girouard - 142
• Musson - 163
• Lees-Milne - 249/254

On-line references spot-checked

• 2/7/22/24/39/75/79-89/92-96/106/107/110/120/121/123/124/126-129/130/132/133/140/141/178/181/191/193/195/213/264-268/271-284

Major off-line sources not spot-checked due to inaccessibility

• Prichard
• Rowell
• Thornton & Tomlin

I regret not being able to check the above, and not being the owner of the Rowell, which looks splendid! But I am satisfied, on the basis of the spot-checking which I have been able to undertake, that the references check out. My sincere apologies for the further delay this has caused. I hope the coordinators are now in a position to make a call on this FAC. I would like to join User:Isaksenk in thanking all those who have contributed. The article has certainly been improved through the process. KJP1 (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 22:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2021 [49].

---

Black-and-red broadbill

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)'AryKun'

The black and red broadbill is a stunning species of broadbill that lives in Southeast Asia. The article passed a GAN in August, and FunkMonk then helped with a thorough PR. AryKun (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I PR reviewed this with FAC in mind, and I think it holds up. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I read through it at the time, have made these tweaks as I couldn't be bothered listing here (and they're pretty straightforward) - nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Jens

• German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin originally described the species as Todus macrorhynchos in 1788,[2] based on a Bornean specimen that was originally described – two times "originally" in this sentence are a bit awkward; can we get rid of one of them, the first maybe?

Done.

• The generic name is from the Greek κυμβη (kumbē), meaning small boat (cf. an unknown bird) – I'm lost here, what is "an unknown bird" trying to say?

There's basically two Greek words that kumbe could mean here, and neither of them are particularly similar. The cf. means compare with.

I still don't get it. Do you mean that kumbe could mean "small boat" OR "unknown bird"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. AryKun (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then why not just stating this directly to be clear, maybe something like "which may either mean "small boat" or "unknown bird"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, done.

• Maybe worth linking Todus, and is there some background here? Since this is an exclusively Caribbean genus, and those birds do not look similar at all, how comes it has been attributed to that genus?

Linked Todus. I don't have any sources for why this was described in Todus, so it would be OR, but the type locality for the specimen wasn't known at the time. In any case, naturalists seemed to like sticking any colorful species into Todus no matter where it was from - see emperor fairywren.

• and (in the Kelantan province) burong tĕrajan – what language is this? Is this the only, or at least the most important local name, or why do you pick this but not other local names?

I don't really know, Casliber seems to have added this.

• The black-and-red broadbill is the only species in the monotypic genus – "only species" and "monotypic genus" are redundant. Since the article is already quite heavy on technical terms, you could maybe remove "monotypic genus" and link "only species" to that article. We should avoid technical terms where we can without loosing clarity.

Done.

• The black-and-red broadbill is the only species in the monotypic genus Cymbirhynchus, in the family Eurylamidae. – I would propose to briefly introduce that family here, e.g., "a family of nine species native to tropical rainforests of Southeast Asia" or similar. A bit of background improves reading experience.

Done.

• These two species are most closely related to the Eurylaimus broadbills and following sentences – you are describing the precise topology of the cladogram and present it as fact. Can this be considered final, or should we be more careful and attribute it to the 2017 study?

I've reworded it.

• Replacing "et al." with "and colleagues" would get rid of another unnecessary technical term.

Done.

• I propose to create redirects for the subspecies and for other common names (e.g., Irrawaddy broadbill) to this article.

Done.

• For the last two subspecies, you don't give any description, although you provide this for the others.

Added.

• Both sexes are similar in appearance, and the species does not show any sexual dimorphism. – Both parts of the sentence say the same thing and are redundant, if I see correctly?

Reworded.

• and the species does not show any sexual dimorphism. However, females are smaller in size. – This is now contradicting. When females are smaller in size, then there is at least a slight sexual dimorphism.

Fixed.

The lead still has "The species does not show sexual dimorphism", which contradicts the main text, which has "slight sexual dimorphism". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the lead.

• The scapulars have pure white edges, – I doubt the link to scapula is correct? Again, heavy on technical terms, maybe try to explain some particularly rare ones (like this example) in brackets in-text.

Done.

You now link this to bird anatomy, but this is a very general article. You could, alternatively, link to the glossary with scapulars. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Linked.

• at the tips of the median coverts – this could be more comprehensible, and median coverts is not linked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Coverts is previously linked, and I've added an in-brackets explanation. The median part just refers to their position.

Yes, that is my point: We can't expect the reader to know what "median" means. If possible, replace with a more common synonym ("inner"), or add an explanation in a bracket? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Added a in-bracket explanation.

• first evolved in the common ancestor of all broadbills – Here, you mention "broadbills" for the first time. What are those? Is this the common name for Eurylaimidae?

Broadbills is a more general term that also includes the African broadbills. I've clarified references to Eurylaimidae so that they are now previously mentioned as being Asian broadbills.

• than other species of Asian broadbills, often remaining silent, and with quieter calls than most other broadbills. – I'm still unsure what a broadbill is, but just checking: This means there are Asian broadbills and broadbills out of Asia, and the latter "most other broadbills" refers to all of them?

Yeah, broadbills in Africa are a separate family; again, I've clarified references to Eurylaimidae so that they are now previously mentioned as being Asian broadbills.

• advertising call – can this be linked to make sure what it means? Attracting females?

Linked.

• reported as a contact-call – why the "-" in "contact-call"?

Removed.

• In which variety of English is this written? Seems to have elements of both British and American English.

My spelling's a bit mixed, so neither really. If you want to standardize it one way or the other, I don't really have an issue.

It is one of the high requirements of a Featured Article that this needs to be consistent. There is also the rule that we need to stick with the spelling that the article had originally. But before you worked on it, the article was so short that I don't see any hint. So I would judge it is up to you which variety you choose. Looks like you are mostly using American English, but "Behaviour", "Vocalisation", "colour" are the British forms and could be changed? I don't know too much about English varieties myself, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess it would be easier to standardize it to American English, but the region where it's found uses English that's more similar to British, so maybe the latter? AryKun (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

If you are consistently following a local English spelling system (e.g. one used in Asia), that should, I think, be fine as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• roost – link

Linked.

• In some cases, 1–2 assistants also help construct the nest. They are smaller than the nests of other broadbills – This is confusing, because "They" seems to refer to the assistants.

Reworded.

• tall (excluding the hanging tail) – using "the" here implies this has been mentioned before, but I don't think it has? Maybe introduce these hanging tails when describing the next morphology?

The tail's supposed to refer to the hanging trail of loose material below the nest.

• ranged from 5-80 – this needs an ndash (a – not a -)

Fixed.

• Although the black-and-red broadbill's population has not been quantified – I am concerned that readers may not understand "quantified" here. Can a simpler word be used?

Replaced with "determined".

• Great read, and interesting bird, thanks for that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I've responded to all the things you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've standardized it to American English because Asian English apparently incorporates both British and American spelling, and I couldn't find a spelling guide to standardize it. AryKun (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

• Don't mix {{citation}} with {{cite}}-family templates

Could you explain how to fix this? I'm not really good with citations.

Essentially there are two different types of citation templates in use - ones starting {{citation, and ones starting {{cite (cite book, cite journal, etc). Either of these different types would be acceptable, but we just can't mix them. So to fix this, pick one type - whichever one you would prefer - and changes all the citations of the other kind to use the one you pick. (At the moment there are a lot more of the second type than the first so it would probably be easier to standardize on that, but your call). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Done for most refs. However, I can't see how to do this for the IUCN status ref in the infobox.

• FN6 is missing location

Added.

• FN7: don't include work title in |title=. Ditto FN8

I don't get how to fix this either.

In both of these cases you have |title= that includes not only the name of the individual page, but also the name of the whole website. It would make more sense to replace what you currently have in |website= with part of what is currently in |title= (the last part, in both cases). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. AryKun (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN13 should use a more specific location. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. AryKun (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, does this mean that the source review is passed? (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like there is still some mixing of {{citation}} and {{cite}}-family templates going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, gone over all the refs and fixed the one that was still a {{citation}}, so could you check again? AryKun (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review this.

• "Based on a 2017 study by Selvatti and colleagues". Could Selvatti be properly introduced.

Added first name.

No you haven't. It needs something like 'the Brazilian naturalist Alexandre Selvatti ...' or 'the Italian songbird poacher and gun runner Alexandre Selvatti ...' or whatever, (Similar to "The German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin described ...")

Okay, done.

• "along with more white-tipped tail feathers". Does this mean more tail feathers, more white-tipped ones or a higher proportion of white-tipped tail feathers?

Rephrased.

• "In Laos, the most frequently heard call was a series". Why the change in tense? ("was") And why is Laos singled out? Is the call different in other countries? Does the rest of this paragraph also apply only to birds in Laos?

The source only gives that it was the most frequently heard call in Laos, so I think that it would be OR to generalize.

I agree, perhaps this should be specified? What about my other two queries?

Rephrased that sentence. The rest of the paragraph is more general, and I hope the rephrasing makes this clearer. AryKun (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. It still reads to me as if everything bar the first sentence only applies to Laos. Perhaps "They also make ascending weeet sounds ..." → 'Across the whole of their range they make ascending weeet sounds ...'? Or move the sentence about the Laotian birds to the end of the paragraph? Or both.

I've moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph.

• "and usually overhanging water". "overhanging" → 'overhang'.

Done.

• "more uncommonly" → 'less commonly'.

Done.

• "Nests are also rarely built far from water". Delete "also".

Rephrased.

• "The inside is usually lined". With what?

Rephrased the sentence to be a bit clearer.

• "the base is covered with". The inside or outside of the base? Or both?

Rephrased the sentence to be a bit clearer.

• "Black-and-red broadbills were parasitized by the chewing louse Myrsidea claytoni in Vietnam, where all examined birds were parasitized." The switch in tense doesn't really work. It reads as if it needs an introduction, something like 'In a 1999 study by A. Smithers et al in Vietnam of 157 black-and-red broadbills all examined birds were found to be parasitized by the chewing louse Myrsidea claytoni.' Or whatever.

Rephrased.

• Could we be given an idea of what the other five parasites are, similar to "by the chewing louse Myrsidea claytoni".

Done.

That's all I have. A nice piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

A couple of responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

One response above, plus:

• "Potential predators". Does this mean that it is not known if they are actual predators? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No, as there are no published works that actually document any instances of predation. AryKun (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

I've failed to see this particular broadbill, certainly spectacular. Generally pretty comprehensive text, but some nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• The choice of American English for a southeast Asian species seems slightly odd, given that Indian and British English are more common in the region, but I don't think any of the named countries has English as an official language, so that's probably not actionable. More to the point, you are not consistent; mollusk but colour

Fixed one instance I could find, are there any other?

• dichromatic should be linked or replaced with two-coloured

Done.

• but the size of birds increases and the white on the tail decreases from north to south through its range.— mention of clinal perhaps?

Done.

• It is smaller in size just It is smaller

Done.

• Any idea how long they live?

No sources mentioning that, but I've added the generation length given by the IUCN.

• I'm pleased to see a parasite section, but like Gog, I'd appreciate some indication of the nature of the red-linked pests

Done.

• You give plenty on parasites, but nothing on predators. Any mammals, birds or reptiles that are known to like a tasty broadbill lunch?

No sources actually documenting this, but one does mention potential predators, so I've added that. AryKun (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I know it's hard to find named predators even for NAm or European birds, so that's fine. No other BE I could see. I'd be inclined to have a single parasites and predators section to avoid a one-line section, but I'll leave that to you. Gog's remaining points seem easily fixable, so change to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Merged the parasites and predators sections. AryKun (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 04:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2021 [50].

---

Turtle

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) and Chiswick Chap 19:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This article has improved since the last time it was nominated. It has gone though a peer review and the problems from last time should be taken care of. LittleJerry (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Realmaxxver

Making some comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "There are 360 recent (after 1500 AD) species of turtles and include tortoises and terrapins. They are widely distributed across the world's continents and oceans." the "(After 1500 AD)" seems a bit redundant; change to "There are 360 recent species of turtles that include tortoises and terrapins; which are widely distributed across the world's continents and oceans."

Some recent species have gone extinct as you will see in the conservation section. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtles are the only vertebrates with a complete shell. It is formed mainly of bone;" to "Turtles are the only vertebrates with a complete shell. It consists mainly of bone;"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtles are ectotherms—commonly called cold-blooded—meaning that their internal temperature varies according to the ambient environment." the note about ectotherms being referred to as cold-blooded can be put in between parenthesis, like "Turtles are ectotherms (commonly called cold-blooded), meaning that their internal temperature varies according to the ambient environment."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtles are generally opportunistic omnivores and feed mainly on plant material and sedentary animals." "feed mainly" should be swapped, like "Turtles are generally opportunistic omnivores and mainly feed on plant material and sedentary animals."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtle habitats around the world are being destroyed. As a result of these pressures, many species are threatened with extinction." the two sentences can be merged; "Turtle habitats around the world are being destroyed; and as a result of these pressures, many species are threatened with extinction."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Naming and Etymology

• "The name of the order, Testudines /tɛˈstjuːdɪniːz/, is based on the Latin word for tortoise, testudo.[4] It was coined by German naturalist August Batsch in 1788.[1]" change to "The name of the order, Testudines (pronounced as /tɛˈstjuːdɪniːz/), is based on the Latin word for tortoise, testudo;[4] and it was coined by German naturalist August Batsch in 1788.[1]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk)

Anatomy

Size

• "The largest living species of turtle, and fourth largest reptile, is the leatherback turtle which can reach over 2.7 m (8 ft 10 in) in length and weigh over 500 kg (1,100 lb).[9]" this can be reworded to "The largest living species of turtle is the leatherback turtle which can reach over 2.7 m (8 ft 10 in) in length and weigh over 500 kg (1,100 lb). The leatherback turtle is also the fourth largest reptile.[9]"

I think the current wording sounds better. LittleJerry (talk) 11:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Shell

• Move the top picture to the right and the bottom picture to the right; the placement of the first picture makes the 'Main template look a little awkward.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "It is primarily made of bone, and consists of two parts, the carapace which usually contains 50–60 bones and covers the back of the animal while the plastron has 7–11 bones and covers the belly." change to "It is primarily made of bone, and consists of two parts; the carapace which usually contains 50–60 bones and covers the back of the animal, while the plastron only has 7–11 bones and covers the belly."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "They are connected by lateral extensions of the plastron. The carapace is fused with the...." "...while the plastron has 7–11 bones and covers the belly. They are connected by lateral extensions of the plastron." split the paragraph into two paragraphs inbetween these sentences.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The development is signaled locally by fibroblast growth factors including FGF10.[15]" → "The development of the shell is signaled locally by fibroblast growth factors that include FGF10.[15]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The outer surface of the shell is covered in epidermal scales known as scutes which are made of keratin, the same substance that makes up human hair and fingernails." link to human hair

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure where "fingernails" should link to though. Realmaxxver (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtle scutes usually interlock like mosaic tiles, though in some species, like the hawksbill sea turtle, the scutes on the carapace can overlap.[18]" change "though" to "but"

Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The leatherback turtle has hardly any bones in its shell, which instead consists of thick connective tissue covered in leathery skin.[20]" → "The leatherback turtle hardly has any bones in its shell; instead it consists of thick connective tissue covered in leathery skin.[20]"

Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• The first use of Ref 18 is a bit redundant per WP:REPCITE

Head and neck

• "...allowing for greater muscle mass and stronger bites.[23] Turtles that are carnivorous or durophagous..." split the first paragraph into two paragraphs inbetween these sentences

Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The necks of turtles are highly flexible, possibly to compensate for their rigid shells. Some species, like sea turtles, have short necks while others, such as snake-necked turtles, have very long ones." link to sea turtles

linked in shell section. LittleJerry (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Limbs and locomotion

Linked it shell. LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtles are slow-moving on land, because of their heavy shells; a desert tortoise moves at only 0.22–0.48 km/h (0.14–0.30 mph)." → "Because of their heavy shells, turtles are slow-moving on land. For example, a desert tortoise moves at only 0.22–0.48 km/h (0.14–0.30 mph). "

Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The limbs of turtles are adapted for various means of locomotion and habits; most have five toes." → "The limbs of turtles are adapted for various means of locomotion and habits; as most turtles have five toes."

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Aquatic turtles have more flexible legs and longer toes with webbing, getting them thrust in the water." replace "getting" with "giving"; "Aquatic turtles have more flexible legs and longer toes with webbing, giving them more thrust in the water."

Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Sea turtles and the pig-nosed turtle are the most specialized for aquatic locomotion." → "The sea and pig-nosed turtles are the most specialized for aquatic locomotion."

Don't like that phrasing. LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Sea turtles such as Chelonia mydas rotate the front limb flippers like a bird's wings so as generate a propulsive force on both the upstroke and on the downstroke." add "the" before Chelonia mydas; "Sea turtles such as the Chelonia mydas rotate the front limb flippers like a bird's wings as to generate a propulsive force on both the upstroke and on the downstroke."

Done LittleJerry (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sences

• "There is possibly a fourth type of cone that detects ultraviolet; hatchling sea turtles respond experimentally to ultraviolet light" → "There is possibly a fourth type of cone that detects ultraviolet; as hatchling sea turtles respond experimentally to ultraviolet light"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Sea turtles orient themselves on land by night, using visual features detected in dim light; they use their eyes in all conditions from clear surface water to muddy coasts and the darkness of the deep ocean, and with their heads above water." make this sentence into two; "Sea turtles orient themselves on land by night, using visual features detected in dim light. They use their eyes in all conditions from clear surface water to muddy coasts and the darkness of the deep ocean, and with their heads above water."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtles have no ear openings; the eardrum is surrounded by a bony otic capsule," → "Turtles have no ear openings; instead the eardrum is surrounded by a bony otic capsule,"

Changed in a different way. LittleJerry (talk) 12:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• "They have higher hearing thresholds compared to other reptiles, reaching up to 500 Hertz in air, while underwater they are more attuned to lower frequencies.[35]" → "They have higher hearing thresholds compared to other reptiles, reaching up to 500 Hertz in air, but while underwater they are more attuned to lower frequencies.[35]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• " Experiments on green sea turtles showed they could learn to respond to a selection of different odorant chemicals (such as triethylamine and cinnamaldehyde) detected by olfaction in the nose." → " Experiments on green sea turtles showed they could learn to respond to a selection of different odorant chemicals such as triethylamine and cinnamaldehyde, which were detected by olfaction in the nose."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Breathing

• "They have multiple lateral and medial chambers, the numbers of which vary between taxa, and one terminal chamber.[44]" "the numbers of which vary between taxa" could be put in parenthesis

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the liver is attached to the right lung by the ventral mesopneumonium, and the stomach is directly attached to the left lung," replace "ventral mesopneumonium" with "ventral root"; add a semicolon after mesopneumonium; "the liver is attachted to the right lung by the ventral root; and the stomach is directly attached to the left lung,"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Immersion periods vary between a minute and an hour depending on the species." → "Depending on the species, immersion periods can vary from a minute to an hour.[46]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Circulation

• "The turtle cardiopulmonary system has both structural and physiological adaptations that distinguish it from other vertebrates." → "The turtle's cardiopulmonary system has both structural and physiological adaptations that distinguish it from other vertebrates."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtles are capable of longer periods of anaerobic respiration than many other vertebrates." → "Turtles are capable of periods of anaerobic respiration longer than many other vertebrates"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Osmoregulation

• "In sea turtles, the bladder is singular while in most freshwater turtles, it is bi-lobed.[50]" → "In sea turtles, the bladder is singular; but in most freshwater turtles, it is bi-lobed.[50]"

I don't that that phasing. LittleJerry (talk)

• "When on land, sea turtles may appear to be "crying".[53]" → "Because of this, sea turtles may appear to be "crying" when on land.[53]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thermoregulation

• "Turtles, like other reptiles, have a limited ability to regulate their body temperature; this varies between species, and with body size" → "Turtles, like other reptiles, have a limited ability to regulate their body temperature; this ability varies between species, and with body size"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• "On Grand Terre Island, food is scarce inland, but shade is scarce near the coast," → "On Grand Terre Island, food is scarce inland, but shade is also scarce near the coast,"

Shade isn't scarce inland as your wording would imply. LittleJerry (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The largest, the leatherback, can swim in the waters off Nova Scotia which may be as cool as 8 °C (46 °F); their body temperature has been measured at up to 12 °C (54 °F) warmer than the surrounding water." → "The largest turtle, the leatherback, can swim in the waters off Nova Scotia which may be as cold as 8 °C (46 °F); while their body temperature has been measured at up to 12 °C (54 °F), warmer than the surrounding water."

I don't think the second half is correct. Chiswick Chap?

Behavior Diet

• "Generally lacking speed and agility, most turtles feed either on plant material or on sedentary animals like mollusks," → "Generally lacking speed and agility, most turtles either feed on plant material, or on sedentary animals like mollusks,"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some species, such as the African helmeted turtle and snapping turtles, eat fish, amphibians, reptiles (including other turtles), birds and mammals; they may take them by ambush but also scavenge.[55]" "Some species, such as the African helmeted turtle and snapping turtles, eat fish, amphibians, reptiles (including other turtles), birds and mammals. They may take them by ambush but also scavenge.[55]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The diet of an individual within a species may change with age, sex, and season, and may differ between populations." "The diet of an individual within a species may vary between age, sex, and season, and may also differ between populations."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Communication

• "The oblong turtle is particularly vocal; producing sounds described as clacks, clicks, squawks, hoots, various kinds of chirps, wails, hooos, grunts, growls, blow bursts, howls and drum rolls.[63] → "The oblong turtle has a particularly large vocal range; producing sounds described as ranging from clacks, clicks, squawks, hoots, various kinds of chirps, wails, hooos, grunts, growls, blow bursts, howls and drum rolls.[63]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Migration

• "Turtles are the only reptiles that migrate long distances, up to thousands of kilometers in marine species; some non-marine turtles such as species of Geochelone (terrestrial), Chelydra (freshwater), and Malaclemys (estuarine) migrate seasonally over much shorter distances," → "Turtles are the only reptiles that migrate long distances. In marine species, they can travel up to thousands of kilometers, while in some non-marine turtles such as the species of Geochelone (terrestrial), Chelydra (freshwater), and Malaclemys (estuarine) migrate seasonally over much shorter distances,"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Another possible cue is the orientation of the earth's magnetic field at the natal beach;" Is it supposed to be "cue" or "technique"?

Cue. LittleJerry (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Defense

• "Other tactics include threat displays and, in the case of Bell's hinge-back tortoise, playing dead." I suggest changing this to "Other tactics include threat displays and, in the case of Bell's hinge-back tortoise, turtles can play dead." per WP:SEAOFBLUE

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Intelligence

• "In the laboratory, turtles (Pseudemys nelsoni) can learn novel tasks and have demonstrated a long-term memory of at least 7.5 months.[73]" "Pseudemys nelsoni" links to Florida red-bellied cooter; so change to "In the laboratory, the Florida red-bellied cooter could learn novel tasks and has demonstrated a long-term memory of at least 7.5 months.[73]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Reproduction

• "In green sea turtles, females generally outnumber males, and as a result, most males copulate with multiple partners throughout their lifespan.[77]" → "In green sea turtles, females generally outnumber males; and as a result, most males copulate with multiple partners throughout their life.[77]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Courtship

• "Courtship varies between species, and with habitat; it is often elaborate in aquatic species, both marine and freshwater, but minimal in the semi-aquatic mud turtles and snapping turtles." this single sentence should be two; "Courtship varies between species, and with habitat. It is often elaborate in aquatic species, both marine and freshwater, but minimal in the semi-aquatic mud turtles and snapping turtles."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Eggs

• "The number of eggs laid varies from 10 to over 100 depending on the species." → "Depending on the species, the number of eggs laid can vary from 10 to over 100."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• "There is experimental evidence that the embryos of Mauremys reevesii can move around inside their eggs to select the optimal temperature for development, thus influencing their sexual destiny.[90]" replace "Mauremys reevesii" with chinese pond turtle.

The article title is the scientific name. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some species remain in the nest for longer, be it for overwintering or to wait for rain to soften the soil for them to dig out.[12]" → "Some species remain in the nest for longer, possibly from overwintering or to wait for rain to soften the soil for them to dig out.[12]"

I don't see the need for "possibly". LittleJerry (talk)

Lifespan

• "a Galápagos tortoise collected by Charles Darwin in 1835 died in 2006, living for at least 176 years though most wild turtles do not reach that age." add a semicolon after "living for at least 176 years" → "a Galápagos tortoise collected by Charles Darwin in 1835 died in 2006, living for at least 176 years; although most wild turtles do not reach that age."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• "...allowing researchers to estimate how long they have lived;[93] they age very slowly.[94]" → "...allowing researchers to estimate how long they have lived;[93] they also age very slowly.[94]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Evolution Fossil history

• "In 1914, Jan Versluys proposed that bony plates in the dermis, osteoderms, fused to the ribs beneath them," → "In 1914, Jan Versluys proposed that bony plates in the dermis and osteoderms, fused to the ribs beneath them,"

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The oldest known members of the Pleurodira lineage are the Platychelyidae, known from the Late Jurassic." → "The oldest known members of the Pleurodira lineage are the Platychelyidae, from the Late Jurassic."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The oldest known softshelled turtles and sea turtles appear during the Early Cretaceous.[99][100]" → "The oldest known softshelled turtles and sea turtles appeared during the Early Cretaceous.[99][100]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

External phylogeny

• "It was later suggested that the anapsid-like turtle skull may be due to reversion rather than to anapsid descent.[104]" "skull" should be plural

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Internal phylogeny

• "Diversity increased steadily in their analysis, speciation occurring at a greater rate than extinction," → "Diversity increased steadily in their analysis, with speciation occurring at a greater rate than extinction,"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Difference between the two suborders

• "Turtles in the two groups differ in the way the neck is retracted for protection." → "The two groups differ in the way the neck is retracted for protection."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Distribution

• "The world regions richest in (non-marine) turtle species are the Amazon basin," → "The world regions richest in non-marine turtle species are the Amazon basin,"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Conservation

• "about 83% of Asia's (non-marine) turtle species are considered threatened.[133]" → "about 83% of Asia's non-marine turtle species are considered threatened.[133]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• " In Australia, Queensland's shark culling program, which uses shark nets and drum lines, has since 1962 killed over 5,000 turtles as bycatch;" " In Australia, Queensland's shark culling program, which uses shark nets and drum lines, has killed over 5,000 turtles as bycatch since 1962;"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Human uses

In culture

• "In Hindu mythology, the World Turtle, named Kurma or Kacchapa, supports four elephants on his back. They in turn carry the weight of the whole world on their backs.[152][153]" → "In Hindu mythology, the World Turtle, named Kurma or Kacchapa, supports four elephants on his back, where they in turn carry the weight of the whole world on their backs.[152][153]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Other cultures too used turtle shells to make music:" → "Other cultures have also used turtle shells to make music."

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In 1896, the French playwright Léon Gandillot wrote a comedy in three acts named La Tortue and was "a Parisian sensation"[169] in its run in France, and came to the Manhattan Theatre, Broadway, New York in 1898 as The Turtle.[170]" → "In 1896, the French playwright Léon Gandillot wrote a comedy in three acts named La Tortue and was "a Parisian sensation"[169] in its run in France, and also came to the Manhattan Theatre, Broadway, New York in 1898 as The Turtle.[170]"

Don't see the need for "also". LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

As pets

• "The popularly of pet turtles increased in the 1950s, and the US become the largest supplier, particularly of farm-bred red-eared sliders, in the international pet trade." change "become" to "became"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

As food and other uses

• "Trade of tortoiseshell was internationally banned in 1977 by CITES.[183]" → "The trading of tortoiseshell was internationally banned in 1977 by CITES.[183]"

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

That is all I have got. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Realmaxxver, is that a support? LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

LittleJerry Yes. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Realmaxxver, then you should declare "support" in bold for the administrators can see. LittleJerry (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

LittleJerry Okay. Support. Realmaxxver (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Funk

• I'll have a look soon. There seems to be a good deal of unnecessary duplinks at first glance. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good. In the meantime, I see our main turtle expert Faendalimas is already helping out on the talk page, but I'll try to ping Sun Creator too, who did two previously successful turtle FACs. FunkMonk (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

FunkMonk? LittleJerry (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Common name, cardiopulmonary system, pubis, ,Nova Scotia, and ultraviolet light could be linked.

Linked. cardiopulmonary doesn't have its own article. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why give scientific names for species in the infobox caption and nowhere else?

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "he smallest living turtle is the speckled padloper tortoise of South Africa, measuring no more than 10 cm (3.9 in) in length." Weight?

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "carapacial (carapace) ridge" Not sure the parenthesis is needed, the name is kind of self evident.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "additionally have "intergular" scutes" State where these are.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "no openings for muscle attachment (temporal fenestra)" Since you say openings, you should say "fenestrae", which is plural.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "that are insectivorous, piscivorous or omnivorous" Link these terms.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Living turtles lack teeth but have keratin sheaths lining the edges of the jaws." You should mention these form a beak.

Source doesn't call it that. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of scholarly sources[51] call it that, you can't rely on the terminology of a single source. Furthermore, you already use the term beak twice in the article, so it's internally inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Aquatic turtles have more flexible legs" Not sure, but it would seem like "aquatic" would apply to sea turtles also? How about "amphibious turtles"?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "There is possibly a fourth type of cone that detects ultraviolet, as hatchling sea turtles respond experimentally to ultraviolet light, but it is unknown if they can distinguish this from longer wavelengths. A freshwater turtle, the red-eared slider, has an exceptional seven types of cone cell." Anything on what these abilities could be used for?

Night vision? Chiswick Chap? LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Source gives no suggestions for specific uses beyond implying vaguely that (some) turtles have good color vision. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtles share the linked circulatory and pulmonary systems of vertebrates, where the heart pumps deoxygenated blood through the lungs, and then pumps the returned oxygenated blood through the body's tissues. The turtle's cardiopulmonary system has both structural and physiological adaptations that distinguish it from other vertebrates." Odd to randomly change to singular, especially since we are talking aout many types of turtle collectively.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "They make use of the shell to buffer the increasing acidity of the body fluids that this causes." How?

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Diagram of origins of turtle body plan" of the turtle body plan?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In some non-marine turtles, such as the species of Geochelone (terrestrial), Chelydra (freshwater), and Malaclemys (estuarine), migrate seasonally over much shorter distances" Incongruent sentence.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Case studies exist of play behaviour in some turtle species" Odd, indirect of putting it. Why not something simpler like "play behavior has been reported/documented in case studies" or similar?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• In at least the above, "behaviour" is UK spelling, though most of the article seems to be US spelling, check for consistency throughout.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and as a result, most males copulate with multiple partners throughout their lifespan" But don't all turtles, since none form pairs?

Pair bonds refer to social monogamy. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The article states they do not form pair-bonds, therefore all turtles would "copulate with multiple partners throughout their lifespan", though this is stated as if only some do? FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtle can live very long lives." Turtles.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "A Galápagos tortoise collected by Charles Darwin in 1835 died in 2006, living for at least 176 years" Is this the record, or have there been older ones? Could be specified.

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In other species, sex is determined genetically." But what does this mean?

linked. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is there variation in egg colour, or are they all white?

doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "using a sharp projection on their upper beak." State this is the egg tooth, common to all reptiles. Also note you do use the term beak here.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 12:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• You link pareiasaur at second instead of first mention.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• It's a bit odd that "Fossil history" jumps around in tense, would make more sense to stick to past tense for sentences like "The development of a shell reaches completion with the Late Triassic Proganochelys".

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtle shells may have originally been adapted for digging and a fossorial lifestyle." Begs elaboration. What does a shell have to do with this lifestyle?

Clarified. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• You could state specifically if the pareiasaur link is now considered unlikely, hard to make out from the text

doesn't say. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "External phylogeny" This title will be very hard to understand for most readers, I even had to read it a few times to get what you were going at. You could also say something like "higher classification" or similar, also a bit esoteric, but much less so.
• Likewise "Internal phylogeny" could be "internal relationships" or "relationships within the group" or similar.

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Tyler Lyson and colleagues (2012) recovered turtles as the sister group of lepidosaurs instead.[110] A 2012 molecular analysis" Why give authorship for one analysis and not the others?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "was estimated to be 255 million years ago" Could state in what geological period this was.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "is estimated to have occurred around 210 million years ago" Could give geological period.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Robert Thompson and colleagues comment that" Give date as for other studies.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link cladogram.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Could probably help the reader to replace anatomical terms (anterior, posterior, etc.) for direction with common terms.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "is formed with the pterygoid bones, but in Cryptodira the pulley is formed with the otic capsule." You could state roughly where on the skull these areas are.

Done. Otic capsule is already mention above with the ear. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The northern limits for terrestrial species" Where is this limit?

You can see it on the map. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

But important info should not be relegated to images only, the distribution section should at least state whereabout the limits are, as this gives an indication of what they can tolerate. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The largest land turtle ever (Megalochelys) could also be mentioned under size.

I don't see the need. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

It gives an indication of their upper limit on land, which has very different pressures on a body than when being able to float in water. Furthermore, some studies indicate it even rivalled Archelon in size:[52] FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing in that article about weight. I'd rather keep the size section simple and not digg into that mess. LittleJerry (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Link Vishnu in the article body, and avatar n the image caption.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "named the with the shell of a tortoise" The what?

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• It could make sense to group the text about modern turtles in literature together, it reads a bit odd now that you talk about turtles in mythology, then mention a few recent books, then back to mythology again, only to end on modern books and media.

Done. LittleJerry (talk)

• "Lewis Carroll's 1865 Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" Link name and book in-text, also Mock Turtle.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "There are 360 recent (after 1500 AD) species of turtles, including tortoises and terrapins" This context in the intro makes sense to list the number of species in, but the article body you only mention the number under conservation. Could be mentioned in the part of the text about their taxonmic diveristy/evolution.

The lead does not have to follow the order of the body exactly. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and they are widely distributed across the world's continents and oceans" You could state they have a northern and southern limit.

That's obvious for every animal. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Not really for entire animal groups, some have members practically everywhere. What I'm asking for is some kind of indication of latitude. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtles are the only vertebrates with a complete shell." Only seems to be stated explicitly in the intro.

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "all turtle species have eight neck vertebrates" Vertebrae.

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support - the text looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Femke

Great work on the article after the last nomination. I won't be able to do a source review, but hope to give some minor points.

• Turtles were historically considered part of a group of reptiles known as Anapsida but more recent studies place them with other modern reptiles and birds in Diapsida, usually closer to Archosauria (crocodilians and birds) than Lepidosauria (tuataras, lizards and snakes). Per WP:EXPLAINLEAD, words like Anapsida, diapsida should not appear in the lede and definitely not in the first paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

  It still contains Pleurodira, even though a common name exist. The audience for this article is as broad as they come. These Latin words are quite deterring. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Common names are given. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

But why not only give common names in the lede? I feel strongly about keeping Wikipedia accessible to those without university education, and cutting back on difficult words and sentence length is essential for that. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Become they are not the proper names. I think the average reader can handle some scientific names. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia. LittleJerry (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe you overestimate the average reader. I would estimate that 20% of the readers of this article are younger than 15, and while they don't have to be able to understand the body, we should not deter them in the first paragraph. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed then. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Species that live in warm temperate climates may go through embryonic diapause.[91] add ", controlling their incubation period" or something to provide some context to the jargon. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I struggle with this sentence "Various species of both freshwater and sea turtles emit numerous types of calls, often short and low frequency, from the time they are in the egg to when they are adults". I'm not quite sure of its purpose. I think low frequency should be hyphenated. If turtles can vocalise in the egg,that would be cool and deserves its own sentence. The word both seems superfluous. The word numerous is a bit vague. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• The alts are not always super informative. I think more description is needed of the sagittal section one. Answer the questions : what do people with screen readers miss? This would be that the pelvis is near vertical and the vertebrae follow the carapace. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed some. LittleJerry (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene can you do an image review? LittleJerry (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I know nothing about copyright. I will likely support on prose soon. Will have another read tomorrow I hope. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Femkemilene, here is a list of file copyright tags that can be used on Wikipedia or on Wikimedia Commons. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• Development of the shell: seen in the egg at stage 16/17, the carapace is developing. In section, the ribs are growing sideways not downwards, into the carapacial ridge, seen here as a bud, to support the carapace.[15] I find this caption difficult to understand. What is stage 16/17? The words seen break up explanation. Is a section a synonym for cross section? Maybe change to: development of the shell in the egg at early/late stage. The carapace is developing. In the cross-section on the right: ribs are growing sideways rather than downward into the carapacial ridge (bud) to support the carapace. Femke (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The second sentence is still cut into 5 choppy parts. Femke (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)

• Among sea turtles, the loggerhead has been shown experimentally to respond both by behavior and by evoked electrical signals to low sounds, with maximal sensitivity between 100 and 400 Hz. I don't understand. How do turtles evoke electrical signals? Again, unnecessary use of both (see WP:REDEX). Sentence might be further condensed by saying: The sea turtle loggerhead. Femke (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)

• The turtle bladder consists of tissues of transitional epitheliums which allow for it to expand while some muscle fibers facilitate contraction. Is this unique / special for turtles? If not, consider leaving out to get rid of jargon "transitional epitheliums". Why the word "some"? What does it have to do with osmoregulation? If you keep it, make clear why this is relevant. Femke (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• They use their eyes in all conditions from clear surface water to muddy coasts and the darkness of the deep ocean, and with their heads above water. Surely, we can shorting this. What about "They use their eyesight above and below water, from clear water to muddy coasts and the darkness of the deep ocean". Or "They can use their eyes in clear surface water, muddy coasts, the darkness of the deep ocean, and also above water." Femke (talk) 10:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• They have higher hearing thresholds compared to other reptiles. I believe "higher than" or "high compared to" are grammatically correct. Femke (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Respiration for many amniotes is achieved by the contraction and relaxation of specific muscle groups (i.e. intercostals, abdominal muscles, and/or a diaphragm) attached to an internal rib-cage that can expand or contract the body wall thus assisting airflow in and out of the lungs. Sentence requires multiple reads before clear because it's too long. What about "Many amniotes breathe by contracting and relaxing specific muscle groups (i.e. intercostals, abdominal muscles, and/or a diaphragm) attached to a rib cage that can expand and contract the body wall, letting air flow in and out of the lungs." Rib cage is not an adjective, so doesn't need hyphen; active tense is easier to understand than passive. Thus is a bit old-fashioned, and unnecessary. Femke (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• The article text has 73 semicolons. While I accept my position on semicolons is not representative (never use them in non-academic texts), I find this excessive. Semicolons rob readers of their breathing pauses. To quote some Kurt Vonnegut, Don't use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you’ve been to college. Currently, a a lot of sentences that are not super closely related are connected with semicolons. Full stops are perfectly fine. Could you cut the use by, say, half or more? Femke (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Viscera -> organs (throughout)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Pleurodira and the lot need to be explained in the body

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• the numbers of which -> their numbers. Femke (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Their association with antiquity and old age have contributed to their endearing where they in turn carry the weight of the whole world on their backs. I don't understand the this sentence. What does old age have to do with turtles carrying the world. Femke (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't know how that was changed. Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• FYI: http://www.readabilityofwikipedia.com gives the article a 'reading score' of 49, which is college-level. I hope by the end of this review, we'll be firmly into the 15-17 yo category (50-60), rather than "college-level". There are still a few awkwardly long sentences that can be split, and easier synonyms to be found. A case could be made that this article should follow the standard of having a readability score above 60, which is a rule of thumb for web-based content. Femke (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
• Some species have developed specialized diets such as the Mekong snail-eating turtle, the hawksbill, which specializes on sponges, and the leatherback, which feeds on jellyfish. What does "the hawksbill" mean? It's already a complicated sentence, so if it's a synonym, probably best to leave it out. What about "Some species have developed specialized diets: the Mekong snail-eating turtle eats sponges and the leatherback feeds on jellyfish.". Femke (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hawkbill sea turtle which is linked above. The hawkbill eats sponges. the Mekong snail-eating turtle obviously eats snails. LittleJerry (talk) 15:39, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Hah! That makes sense. It's a bit confusing to switch sentence structure between the species. Femke (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Moved the Mekong snail-eating turtle last. LittleJerry (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• In marine species, they can travel up to thousands of kilometers, while in some non-marine turtles such as the species of Geochelone (terrestrial), Chelydra (freshwater), and Malaclemys (estuarine) migrate seasonally over much shorter distances, up to around 27 km (17 mi), to reach favored egg-laying sites. Split sentence. Femke (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Both young and mature sea turtles undertake far longer migrations -> You've already said that marine species travel much further in the previous sentence. Young and mature becomes clear in the next sentence. Can be omitted. Femke (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• The mechanism by which sea turtles navigate to their breeding beaches remains unknown -> "How sea turtles navigate to their breeding beaches remains unknown"

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• For each of these species, the populations in different places have their own mitochondrial DNA genetic signatures which persist over the years, showing that the populations are distinct, so that homing must be occurring reliably.[67] -> split sentence. Femke (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• 360 recent (after 1500 AD). Not quite clear. I think the lede should say 'living and recently extinct', while the body should dedicate a separate sentence to (after 1500 AD). Femke (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The one in the body is still there. Femke (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Turtles are ectotherms or "cold-blooded". The or and the quotes imply those two terms are synonyms, but they are both wikilinked. Either remove one wikilink, or remove the quotes+add either. Femke (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

FYI: my energy levels are fluctuating quite a lot. May not be able to complete review. Femke (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• aquatic locomotion -> moving through water?

Phrase not found in article? Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I changed it to swimming. LittleJerry (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• have column-like legs with elephant-like feet withand short toes

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Turtles that are carnivorous or durophagous (eating hard-shelled animals), such as Mesoclemmys nasuta, have the most powerful bites, in its case 432 N. Can this be split in two? "Turtles that are carnivorous or durophagous (eating hard-shelled animals) have the most powerful bites. For example, the durophagous(?) Mesoclemmys nasuta has a bite of 432 N.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some turtle species have developed proportionally large and thick heads, allowing for greater muscle mass and stronger bites -> I think the word proportionally confuses here and can be left out. Femke (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• the ambient environment -> their direct environment

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• What is a sedentary animal? One that sits and cannot move? (The link in the lede goes to sedentary lifestyle, so that's no help. But in the lede jargon shouldn't be explained by links anyway).

Reworded. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Turtles have been hunted for their meat, for use in traditional medicine, and for their carapaces -> simplify carapaces to shells?

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure about grammar, but should "Turtles shells" in second paragraph lede not be "Turtle shells" or Turtles' shells?

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• In North America, it may denote the order as a whole, while in Britain, the name may be exclusive to sea turtles as opposed to freshwater "terrapins" and heavy-footed, land-dwelling tortoises -> split long sentence

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• in more contemporary times -> simplify (more recently, currently/now + present tense). Femke (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Support. Thanks for simplifying the article. It's very interesting now that I understand it. Femke (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

Would be listing every image in the article, and adding my concerns (if any)

• Can we improve the ALT text?

They look fine to me. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Images seem relevant
  • File:Turtle diversity.jpg — Composed of 4 images
    • File:Rotbauchspitzkopfschildkroete-07.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 2.0 Germany
    • File:Indian flapshell turtle with Spots visible 03.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 4.0
    • File:Galapagos giant tortoise Geochelone elephantopus.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 3.0
    • File:Hawksbill Turtle.jpg — Licencing fine
  • File:World.distribution.testudines.1.png — Licencing fine, own work of a user under 2 licences
  • File:Turtle skeleton cross-section, labelled as infographic.svg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 4.0
  • File:How the Turtle Gets its Shell.svg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 4.0.
  • File:Mocsári teknős Kiserdő 2016.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 4.0
  • File:Green Sea Turtle swimming.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 4.0
  • File:Red Eared Slider's Eye.jpg — Licencing fine, checked from the Flickr link.
  • File:Indian softshell turtle (Nilssonia gangetica) Babai River nose-breathing at surface.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 4.0
  • File:Snapping turtle in Mud.JPG — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 4.0
  • File:Two basking cooter turtles (5861462496).jpg — Licencing fine, verified by a Flickr reviewer.
  • File:Green Sea Turtle grazing seagrass.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 3.0 (Also a Featured picture)
  • File:Chelodina oblonga 1.jpeg — Licencing fine, source very clearly states that it is under CC Attribution 3.0. I'll suggest to add an archived source link to the image just to be on the safer side.
    • I have just made an archive url here. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Crested Caracara eating a turtle (16753759877).jpg — Licencing fine, verified by a Flickr reviewer.
  • File:Tortoise Snap (2 frames).jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 4.0
  • File:Three-toed Box Turtle (47930139991).jpg — Licencing fine, verified by a Flickr reviewer.
  • File:Snapping turtle 4 md.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 2.5
  • File:Tortoise-Hatchling.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 3.0 (Also a Featured picture)
  • File:Origin of Turtle Body Plan.jpg — Licencing fine, confirmed by the source link. The article itself is under CC SA 4.0, so is the image. I'll suggest to add an archived source link to the image just to be on the safer side.
  • File:T.h. hermanni con speroni 5.JPG — Licencing fine, own work of a user under various licences.
  • File:Pelomedusa subrufa (cropped).JPG — Licencing fine, own work of a user in PD
  • File:Turtle neck retraction.svg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under CC SA 4.0
  • File:Loggerhead ted-noaa.jpg — I cannot access the source. 404 error

Replaced link. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• • File:Kurmavatara (tortoise incarnation of Vishnu), from Garhwa, Allahabad District.jpg — Licencing fine, image taken way back in 1875
  • File:PSM V10 D562 The hindoo earth.jpg — Better use {{PD-US-expired}}, as we don't know who the author is, so can't claim when he died.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• • File:Kangxi-Lugou-rebuilding-stele-3581.jpg — Licencing fine, own work under various licences.
  • File:Sea turtle - Google Art Project.jpg — I cannot access the source. 404 error

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• • File:Alice par John Tenniel 34.png — Licencing fine, but can we format the page, to specify the the author John Tenniel died in 1914?

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• • File:The Turtle 1898 Manhattan Theatre poster.jpg — Licencing fine.
  • File:Terrapin Shell Leg Rattles Worn by Lead Woman Dancer, Oconaluftee Village, NC. - NARA - 281630.jpg — Licencing fine, image created by the US Dept. of Interior
  • File:Sheldonbasking.JPG — Licencing fine
  • File:StateLibQld 2 395489 Catching turtles, wood engraving, 1875.jpg — Needs a US copyright tag.

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• • File:TurtleSeafood.jpg — Licencing fine.
  • File:Turtle plastrons as TCM in Xi'an market.jpg — Licencing fine.
  • File:Peigne en écaille.jpg — Licencing fine, own work of a user under various licences.
• Have boldfaced whatever you'll need to address.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything now seems fine to me. Passing the image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will attempt one. Hopefully I can access enough of the sources to feel comfortable with spot-checks. Hog Farm _Talk 22:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turtle Taxonomy Working Group (2017). Turtles of the World: Annotated Checklist and Atlas of Taxonomy, Synonymy, Distribution, and Conservation Status (PDF). Chelonian Research Monographs. 7 (8th ed.). pp. 1–292. " - Is it possible to narrow down the page range/numbers here? 292 pages is a very long range

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Willis, Katie L (2016). "Underwater hearing in turtles". Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology. 875: 1229–35" - If this is a page range, go ahead and expand it out to 1229-1235

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk)

• "Rieppel, Olivier (March 13, 2017). Turtles as hopeful monsters: origins and evolution. Bloomington, Indiana. p. 195. " - Needs the publisher

Added. LittleJerry (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources all look reliable enough; formatting is generally good except for the items noted above. Spot checks to come later. Hog Farm _Talk 00:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Turtle/archive2#Spot checks, looks fine. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Hi LittleJerry, re your email query, ideally we would be looking for another substantive review to nail down a consensus to promote. If one isn't forthcoming by sometime between the fourth and fifth weeks since nomination a coordinator will do what they get paid the big bucks for and make a judgement call as to whether to close as is or to leave it a little longer. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Grapple X

Been reading through this one over the course of the morning and I have a few points.

• Happy with the prose overall; this might not be the most ringing endorsement as it's my own weakest point, but I find this article reads well to a lay reader with little background in science.

Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Harvesting wild turtles are legal in some American states"—harvesting [...] is?

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• "A Galápagos tortoise collected by Charles Darwin in 1835 died in 2006"—we have an article for this animal at Harriet (tortoise), might be worth including. If the Franklin source doesn't name her then there are a few in that article which can supplement it.

Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• In regards to layout, there are a few short paragraphs given their own sub-headings which is generally to be avoided (MOS:PARA). Some of these are probably okay to be left but it might be worth looking at whether some can be combined under a broader heading; for example the "Communication" and "Intelligence" are both fairly brief, but feel close enough that they could exist as two separate paragraphs under an "Intelligence and communication" (or vice versa) heading.

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Images have been vetted well for use but in terms of layout I think we could neaten things up a little, especially as, at least on this monitor, there are a few instances where one spills into another heading. For example the neck retraction diagram sits a little awkwardly under the joint image template showing two related photographs, it displays wider and sits almost entirely in another section for me--the multiple image template would support merging the three together as a row of two and a row of one, which would alleviate some of this and tighten things up a little; the perrow= field would facilitate this. Similarly, in the "Human uses" heading we have two galleries displaying images at a remove from their related text, which is fine, but in between these is a single thumbnail image as well, and I wonder if it would be more at home under the second gallery row. These are only subtle changes and should be regarded only as suggestions.

Good idea. Fixed the neck retraction to fit neatly in the, er, body cavity, and grouped the human uses images as suggested. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's all I have for now but I'm leaning towards supporting this one, let me know what you make of the above. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks, all useful suggestions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Having reviewed the changes made I am happy to support this at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim

Looks pretty comprehensive, I even checked that you'd included Chelys galactica. Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• the material of hair and fingernails — I'd prefer hair, horns and claws rather than a specifically human trait

Done.

• the scapula, and the coracoid — Why the comma?

Removed.

• turtle hardly has any bones in its shell — turtle has hardly any bones in its shell

Done.

• they have a full-color vision. — remove "a"

Fixed.

• The heart — perhaps three-chambered heart

Done.

• bury itself under the floor — perhaps sea bed or sea floor, floor alone sounds constructional to me

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Therapyisgood

• Nothing on ectoparasites or endoparasites? From a quick Google search I found [53] and [54]. Although looking at the article I can't see a good spot to fit it in. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

That's for articles on species. The papers you are citing are way too specific for this general article. Not every taxon article is suitable for discussion on parasites or predators. LittleJerry (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Source comments

• Cite 1: add the publisher. Add the series.

Done.

• Cite 3: add access date.

Done.

• Cite 17: Why is Gaffney considered a journal article rather than a book? Why no identifier? (OCLC=263164288)

Fixed.

• Cite 19: p/pp error.

Fixed.

• What rule are you using to include or not the publisher locations of works?

Removed locations.

• Cite 135: add the OCLC.

Done.

• Cite 166: add the OCLC. (1049742993)

Done.

• The titles of works should be in title case. See MOS:5LETTER.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2021 [55].

---

1987–88 Gillingham F.C. season

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

After two successful nominations and one that's nearly over the line, here's my fourth nomination of a season from the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham, and this one was certainly a rollercoaster ride. The team started off the season like a house on fire, scoring 8 and 10 on consecutive Saturdays, the latter the highest score in the Football League for nearly 25 years. I was at both games and it was madness (in a good way, of course!). I distinctly remember that Match magazine published an article with the brilliant headline "Gillingham are killing 'em!". After that, though, things went downhill quite rapidly, and popular manager Keith Peacock was sacked just after Christmas, a decision which fans of my generation are still mad about more than 30 years later. As ever, I look forward to getting feedback, which will be acted on as soon as humanly possible! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Image review—pass no issues found (t · c) buidhe 20:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• " play-offs for promotion" link both.
• "from promotion to the Second" overlinked.
• "this was the reverse of the second-choice shirts" seems wrong way round, wouldn't the away strip be the reverse of the home strip?
• "the highest number of goals " the most goals
• "scored four of the goals, the first time a Gillingham player had scored as many goals" maybe just "scored four, ..."? Otherwise a bit repetitive.
• "left the team second" left Gillingham (and then rephrase the subsequent clause to avoid repeat).
• "in 7th position" seventh.
• "14th season with ... of the season" repetitive.
• "8th" eighth.
• "over Chesterfield.[51]" overlinked.
• " from Millwall, made" overlinked.
• "placed Walsall, and " overlinked.
• "the Second Division. Stoke won the" maybe run on instead of saying "Stoke won..." like "the Second Division, losing the ... leg and the .. leg..."
• Luff made a league appearance so is "notable".
  • Linked, although at that point I discovered that I had actually created his article as a redirect to this one back in March. I highly doubt he will ever have an article based on his ten minutes of pro football more than 30 years ago, but if someone wants to convert the redir to an article they can.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
• Ref 19, what is page ifc? Inside front cover?
  • Yeah - didn't know how else to write that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - thanks for your review, all addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, there wasn't much to fuss about here, so with the above changes, happy to support. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - do you think I should change the "ifc" in that ref to be in caps? I had thought that even though the IFC isn't numbered, I could potentially "count back" from the first page which is actually numbered, but that gets me to 0 :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, I guessed what it meant, I'm not sure you can have "p. inside front cover", bit odd too! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Amakuru

Background and preseason

• "out of action" - according to the dictionary this is an idiom, so should probably be avoided per MOS:IDIOM
• "forward Tony Cascarino" - try to reword to avoid a WP:SEAOFBLUE if that's possible
• "midfielder George Shipley and defender Gary West" - same thing
• "£40,000 to sign Shipley and £50,000 to sign" - repetition of "to sign"
• "supporters were looking forward to Gillingham playing at" - seems a bit journalese.
• "would not play at Wembley for the first time until 1999" - suggest "did not make their first appearance at Wembley until 1999". Also maybe link the 1999 event which saw them play there.

August–December

• "a second consecutive league match in which the team failed to score a goal" - I feel like I'd like to know what the result was in this game
• "second in the table ... the team dropped to 12th" - as comparable figures, these should probably be either second/twelfth or 2nd/12th, per MOS:NUM
• "and would not play again" - "and did not play again"
• "Former assistant manager Taylor was appointed" - presumably he was still the assistant manager at the time of his appointment? If so, I think it would be better to omit the "former" as this makes it sound like there was a hiatus during which he was not in the post.

January–May

• "1 January" - as a new year, I might consider adding "1988" to this date
• "club record fee" - perhaps a hyphen between club and record?
• "league leaders Notts County" - a hyphen here too?

Aftermath

• "Taylor remained manager of Gillingham for the 1988–89 season" - suggest maybe "the start of the 1988–89 season", to be clear that the didn't remain in the post for the whole season.
• "I'm proud of my time with the club, though". - reverse the " and the . at the end, since it's a multi-sentence quote and should finish with a full stop.

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually wait, there's Lead too. Coming up:

Lead

• You link here to "voted back into the league" but I didn't see a similar link in the body
• "but been defeated" - "but had been defeated"

OK, that really is it now!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: - all done bar one. I've personally never seen "league leaders" (as a noun) written with a hyphen. "League-leading" (as an adjective) yes, but not "league leaders"......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. I was thinking maybe as an adjective it would be hyphenated, but no biggy. Nice work overall, and happy to support. As an aside, if you have any spare time to do a review yourself, WP:Featured article candidates/2014 FIFA World Cup Final/archive1 is awaiting a bit more feedback. Do let me know if you have any other work you'd like me to look at as well. Cheers!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looks fine on comprehensiveness and prose. No clangers jumped out at me. A nice read. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Don't mix {{citation}} with {{cite}}-family templates
• FN14 should use pp. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: - resolved :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: - can I confirm I am now OK to open another nom? Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - courtesy repinging for Chris's request here, as I think due to the typo and then correction, the ping may not have worked - if you don't sign it at the time you make the ping it sometimes fails.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Tks Amakuru -- go ahead, Chris. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2021 [56].

---

Edgar Kain

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Edgar Kain, the Royal Air Force's first flying ace of the Second World War. A New Zealander, he joined the RAF in 1936 and after his training was completed, he was sent to No. 73 Squadron which was sent to France shortly after the outbreak of war. Flying the Hawker Hurricane during the Phoney War and then the Battle of France he quickly achieved success as a fighter pilot. A sometimes reckless pilot, he was killed performing low level acrobatics over his squadron's airfield. I have taken the article through the GA process last year, and it has undergone a MilHist A-Class review earlier this year. I look forward to working with reviewers to take it to FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who stop by to leave comments and feedback. Zawed (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you Nikkimaria, I have added so all images have alt text now. Zawed (talk) 09:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Looks good. Some minor typos:

• "maneuvers" should be "manoeuvres"
• "Kain was record as being killed on active service, rather than in action" -> "record" should be "recorded"

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support, I have fixed both those typos. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• Within 17 days [...] nine aerial victories As a general rule, we write numbers as words above 9, but for consistency within a sentence I would change this to either "seventeen" or "9".

• Changed to 9. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why did he join the RAF and not the RNZAF?

• This was queried at GA as well. The sources are not clear as to why Kain chose the RAF over the RNZAF. However, the RAF would have had superior aircraft (the RNZAF did not have fighters at the time) and also the overseas travel would have been attractive as well. At the time he joined, a recruitment campaign in the Dominions to attract flying personnel to the RAF was well underway so this would also be a pathway for young men wanting to a career in aviation. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• With the wing now re-designated as No. 67 Wing, weather conditions affected The use of with implies a connection between the re-designation and the weather

• Rephrased, that should be better. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• but Kain had successful encounter on 23 November had a successful encounter?

• That was a typo, fixed. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not sure the link on "the thaw" is helpful, especially as linking it like that suggests an article on a specific thaw

• Removed link. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• However, he promptly took ill with German measles "however" implies a contradiction but I don't see one here, just an unfortunate happenstance

• Deleted "However". Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• few days and during his convalescence,[51] the citation you need two commas (one after the "and") or none but one doesn't work

• Rephrased by starting a new sentence at "During". Does that work for you? Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• However, the squadron was shortly back at Rouvres "however" again

• Deleted "However". Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• The British fighters attacked, with Kain shooting down a Ju 88 this use of ", with" is ungrammatical and should be avoided in formal prose

• Have rephrased. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest putting footnotes 4 and 5 in the body, especially as the content of 4 is mentioned in the lead.

• Have done - that fn 4 is more appropriate in the body is actually quite obvious in hindsight for as you have noted, it is mentioned in the lead. Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing to trouble you too much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the review HJ Mitchell, much appreciated. I have responded to your various points above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Ian

Recusing coord duties, I missed out on fully reviewing this at MilHist ACR so this is the first time I've been able to have at it. After completing my habitual copyedit I'm happy with prose, structure, detail and tone, and will take Nikki's image review as read. See below re. referencing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Reviewed for formatting and reliability at MilHist ACR and, having checked again here, I think it meets the criteria. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support/CE Ian! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 06:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Z1720

Non-expert prose review.

• "He was also wounded in action." A little bit random to have this without an explanation in the lede. Can this sentence be expanded to describe how this happened?

• I've opted to remove this; it was relatively slight since he was back flying a few days afterwards so perhaps a bit trivial for the lede in hindsight. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "He started working as a clerk" -> He worked as a clerk

• Done. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "just over seven hours' flying." I do not know the MOS of the apostrophe in this phrase, so I'm flagging it here and ask that you ensure this is the correct use of the apostrophe in "hours".

• I've revised this to do away with the apostrophe. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "By now Kain" -> By this point, since it is not taking place "now"

• Done. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "but this affected the runway of the aerodrome which was prone to bogging. This impacted flight operations for the next few weeks" -> but this affected the runway of the aerodrome which was prone to bogging, impacting flight operations for the next few weeks. I think this change breaks up the "this verbed" structure.

• Done. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Kain fought an action with" I've never heard of the phrase "fought an action". Are these the correct words?

• To be fair, it is probably more a naval phrase. I applied it here so as to try and avoid using "encounter" repetitively. I have rephrased to refer to a dogfight, and linked that term. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Aviation historians Christopher Shores and Clive Williams" Is this Clive Williams (professor)?

• I don't think so; he is a co-author of Aces High, the earliest version of which was published in 1966. The professor Clive Williams was a young serving soldier at the time, so it would seem unlikely. Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are my comments. Please ping when they are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Z1720, thank you for taking the time to have a look at this one. I have responded to your comments above. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 09:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

My comments have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2021 [57].

---

Symphyotrichum lateriflorum

Nominator(s): Eewilson (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about... the vascular plant species Symphyotrichum lateriflorum in the family Asteraceae. Symphyotrichum is a genus of about 96 asters native to the Americas. Most in the Northern Hemisphere bloom August–October, some as late as November. There are very few GA articles from this family, and this is the first for this genus. It has received only positive responses on its content and photographs during 2021, and I think it would be a great addition to the FA list and, if possible, one to appear during this Fall season (although obviously only if possible). I will work closely with any reviewers to make this article top notch. Eewilson (talk) 08:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Note; it was the subject of quite an in depth GA review Dracophyllum > FAC 08:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: Yes. Yes it was. :) Eewilson (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Given that the range includes non-US countries, why have a range map that is US-only? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Good point, and I will create a new one to include Canada and Mexico. Eewilson (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Native distribution map has been updated. Eewilson (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Great. If possible can the map be made slightly larger? And if that's not possible within the template, can we add "(click to enlarge)" in the caption? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
        • I did both. See what you think. I did get rid of the second species image from the taxobox to accommodate the extra size. If we need it or a similar one, it can be put somewhere else on the page. Eewilson (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now....

@Casliber: made some comments, indented bullet level. —Eewilson (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'd abbreviate all measurements. currently most aren't but you start abbreviating halfway down the description section...
  • Modified and made sure I only spelled out on first use of each unit (per MOS:UNITNAMES)
• ...with alternate leaves = "alternate" can be linked to phyllotaxis.
  • done
• avoid 1-2 sentence paras if you can
  • I'll check
• don't bold in body of article - names for the plant there can be plain or in quotation marks
  • You mean in the Etymology section?

Yes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, see if that works. I just made them plain text. —Eewilson (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah this is often tricky in biology articles - see, the standard mark-up would be to use italics for words-as-words (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_type) - however that poses a problem when a page is peppered with italic scientific names - same issue arises with foreign words and bird calls. So alternatives are no mark-up or quotation marks (though with plants that then creates problems if you have a bunch of cultivars written..sigh...some discretion and pragmatism hels here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Wow - the level of detail. I'd remove sentences that specify the L.=Linnaeus myself....
  • Gee, thanks? I'll look at the L. stuff
  • Do you mean remove all of this, part of this, or what? Just making sure I know what you're thinking. "The letter L followed by a period (or dot), written L., is the standard botanical author abbreviation for Carl Linnaeus. Likewise, Á.Löve and D.Löve are the abbreviations for Icelandic botanist Áskell Löve and Swedish botanist Doris Löve, respectively. Linnaeus' abbreviation is placed in parentheses because his authorship was retained when Áskell and Doris Löve cited Solidago lateriflora L. as the basionym when they renamed the species."

Yes, those sentences are what I mean Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so that's gone. —Eewilson (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• In two minds about cultivars (being bolded) - need to think on this. More later
  • Yeah, I bolded them because they are to sort of be like sections only with bullet-points, for readability.

• I'm confused about variety horizontale - if Aster pendulus is the earliest combination why is it not var. pendulum...?

Good question and one I didn't ask. Let me see if there's something I missed to explain why or perhaps I worded something incorrectly. —Eewilson (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This will require some digging. I am not sure if I missed something or somebody else (a past botanist) missed something. I may have to check the Code to see if it fit as an exception. Because the varieties are no longer accepted by POWO, the synonymy is linked up strictly with the species now. However, COL does have historical records, and I may be able to find something there. —Eewilson (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: Alright, so it wasn't until 1889 that Nathaniel Lord Britton combined Solidago lateriflora L., Aster diffusus Aiton, and Aster miser Aiton into one species named Aster lateriflorus (L.) Britton, with Solidago lateriflora L. as the basionym, because it was the earliest. Nobody had recognized that what was called Solidago lateriflora was really an aster until Britton did. So anything that happened with this species, including the descriptions of varieties, was done on one of the other names (including Aster divergens, not listed here but is in the article). You can see the chronology of the definitions in the Wikispecies entry which I filled out fully when doing research for this article. So, the bottom line with the species and varieties is that Solidago lateriflora was sort of the unnoticed step-child until 1889. Now, all of them are synonyms of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. Was there cleanup that should have been or should be done with the names? I don't know. Maybe it has because it is now all in POWO. If there still were not ambiguity in this species, with the existing question of "are there varieties or aren't there," then this article would be simpler. So I'm not sure what to do here. I can't write an idea of what probably happened. Maybe I could write something like this after the information regarding Britton in 1889:

Until this time, these species were treated separately, as were any varieties associated with them.

What do you think? —Eewilson (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I need to drink some more coffee..and re-look then :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There was this: Aster lateriflorus var. pendulus E.S.Burgess. I'm updating the synonym list based on POWO 2021. I may have a bit of work to do in taxonomy. I'll get back with you. You can keep on suggesting if you want, or just wait. Eewilson (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Main thing is to avoid OR - we can only reflect on material in existence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: Agreed. At this point, I have cleaned up stubby paragraphs. Clarified some text in taxonomy. Added a quote from Karl McKay Wiegand to the beginning of an existing sentence in taxonomy, new text in bold: "In a 1928 study of Aster lateriflorus and close relatives, while pondering the "endless confusion in the naming of specimens" of this species, American botanist Karl McKay Wiegand noted how environmental differences likely affected leaf and flower head characteristics, causing botanists to name specimens of this plant as different varieties or species when they may not have been." Also, I updated the synonyms from POWO to make sure the list in the species box is comprehensive and current. Likely a few other things today. So I'm all done without further input. Where does it stand, do you think? —Eewilson (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Blargh - looks good on comprehensiveness (any outstanding issues are extremely obscure/minor) and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@Casliber: Thank you! —Eewilson (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

What's next?

Because this is my first FAC, and because it doesn't appear as structured as GA review, I now wonder what is next? Does anyone else look at it? Anything I can do to push it along? Who else, if anyone, should I ping? I ask only because this species is in full bloom at this time, and if it were possible to get it on the front page before the end of October, it would be a great time to do that. —Eewilson (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Each FAC needs a minimum of 3 reviewers, so the best thing anyone can do is review at least 3 others and maybe someone might come and review yours. People will come eventually (PS: not supposed to be a quid pro quo thing as such though). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Already working on (or did) one. Once I finish the GA review I'm into, I'll work on more. Thanks so much for your review, Cas! —Eewilson (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

TRM

Way out of my comfort zone but some general comments which might improve things:

• "the family Asteraceae native to" is a sea of blue.
  • Done.
• Although the lead has four paras, it still feels that they could be fleshed out a little.
  • Done, I think. Suggestions welcomed.
• "lanceolate, rarely" that's overlinked.
  • Done.
• "was described by Linnaeus" overlinked.
  • Done.
• "879.[22]: 879  Latin" is that Latin needed? If so, add a full stop after.
  • I had a full stop and someone came in and removed it. Restored. "Latin" may not be needed, but I don't know that it's a big deal. I can remove it if you insist.
• "Club.[43][11]: 174  He" etc etc, I usually expect to see citations in numerical order.
  • Fixed in all locations for your viewing pleasure.
• "He actually said" does "actually" really add anything here?
  • That's what was wrong with that sentence! Removed.
• "botanist René Louiche Desfontaines described" overlinked.
  • Done.
• "second part of the scientific name" overlinked.
  • I moved the link to the first mention, which does not count the infobox.
• "botanist William Aiton in" same.
  • Done.
• "and Prince Edward Island. In" same.
  • Done.
• "the European Union's", Italy etc, no need to link major geographical or organisational entities.
  • Done. Removed links for continents, countries, and the EU.
• "documented the Meskwaki use" overlinked.
  • Done.
• " the Potawatomi pûkwänä'sîkûn" likewise.
  • Done.
• "with Symphyotrichum novae-angliae to " same.
  • Done. Crazy that nobody has noticed all of these until now, including me.
• Miller, Chelsea Physic Garden, RHS and Award of Garden Merit all overlinked.
  • Well, dang. Done.
• And put (RHS) the first time you mention that society.
  • Done.
• Cultivars, this may be controversial, but this looks like it is ideally suited for a table rather than this lengthy list of pretty much proseline.
  • Well, I began it as a table last year then decided on a bulleted list. I'll change it if consensus here insists. To be honest, I could go either way (but really don't want to do that work right now before FA). If you all think it would make the article better, I'm all for it. Another option, if there are enough cultivars, would be a List article. It is nothing like the number of Symphyotrichum novae-angliae cultivars, but it could work.

Hopefully some of that is useful. Cheers for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you! I'll see what I can do. —Eewilson (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

By all means ping me if anything is unclear or if you need any help with any of the issues I've raised. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Okay, suggested changes made and comments above. —Eewilson (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Hi! I wanted to touch base to see if you have anything else on this or if you are ready to state your claim. —Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• TRM ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm happy that most of my changes have been implemented satisfactorily. I still think the cultivars should be "tablefied", or sent out to a list article but if I'm the only person with that in mind, there's perhaps no consensus to do so. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally I see your point re tablication. But it looks FAC standard as it is and I can see the argument for leaving it. So, yeah, let's see what other reviewers make of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man and Gog the Mild. You all are killing me. :) Eewilson (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on the table idea from the nominator. I started looking into this. I think putting it in a table could be a good idea if it were a separate list article. See User:Eewilson/List of Symphyotrichum lateriflorum cultivars. I think it would be best to leave it as is (prose-y) if it remains in the article. If it is later pulled out into a separate list article, then we could do a Main link to a list. But I'm not sure (or excited) about changing it for FA. That's my 2 cents. I mean, I won't say "no" but I may silently cry, and nobody wants that. Eewilson (talk) 05:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

There are no hard and fast rules - I recall leaving cultivars in a sort of prose/listy form much like in this version Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man and Gog the Mild, as Casliber links it, that's where it remains now, which then is fine for FA? Eewilson (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man, unless you have any further input on this I am going to accept the non-tableification as not standing in the way of promotion, if everything else checks out. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Gog the Mild Are we clear? Eewilson (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

WOO HOO! thank you! Eewilson (talk) 12:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• "are rarely tinted pink or lavender" - source?
  • This is in the Florets subsection: "ray florets grow in one series and are usually white, rarely pinkish or purplish." The source citation is there.
    • Does the source say purple, or does it say lavender? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
      • For the ray florets, it actually says "white, rarely pinkish or purplish." Do you think I should use the exact text? Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I think "lavender" is more specific than "purple", so if the source just says purple we should just say purple. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
          • DONE! :) Eewilson (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "as well as misspellings Aster laterifolius and Symphyotrichum laterifolium" - source?
  • Hmmm. I may need to take that out because previously removed sources that got removed during GA review contained those misspellings.
    • Removed. Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Don't mix {{citation}}-family templates with {{cite}}-family templates
  • Okay
    • Removed. It was a duplicate source anyway. Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Be aware that {{eFloras}} is based on {{citation}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent in when publication location is included
  • Can you elaborate on this one? Not sure I understand what you mean
    • Okay, a few just don't have locations. Citations 4, 6, 17, and 91 use the Template:eFloras which formats in its own way. I made sure everything else had a location when available and removed the Wikilinks from the locations per the documentation in the Cite templates that says the location parameter is "usually not Wikilinked." Eewilson (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Be consistent in how these are formatted, and see MOS:POSTABBR. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I didn't even notice that. It's the (stupid) eFloras template (which I do not like and do not like being constrained). I'm in a bit of a quandary here. If I don't use it, someone will later likely come along and change it because I think we (via the PLANTS project) are encouraged to use certain templates. I could be wrong on this. @Casliber: If there is a citation template for a source (e.g., Template:eFloras as we are discussing here), do we have to use it, and am I correct in that someone will likely come along and change it in the article if it's not used? Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I was able to set via = eFloras to get rid of all the unnecessary garbage there. Maybe that will do? Eewilson (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Compare the formatting of the location in FN23 versus 71, for example. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
              • AHH! Okay, the thing is that all of this "The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries; and, Australian National Botanic Gardens" is the combined publishers. The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew are actually called "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew". So, in FN23, I removed the location Kew out (just today, I think), but I should really put it back in and not fill in the location field according to what the cite template instructions say. With FN71, I'm not sure what to do. It is three locations, three organizations combined to publish IPNI (International Plant Name Index, which I took out of the author and website and now just have www.ipni.org which makes me wonder if that's enough). Looking for your guidance on these. Kinda tearing my hair out, but once we figure it out, then I have 95 other plant articles in this genus that can be formatted the correct way. Eewilson (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Are there no secondary sources available for the information cited to Britannica?
  • Probably. It's possible I didn't have it then. I'll check.
    • Done. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Why include both domain and website name in one parameter?

I must have thought that was required, but maybe not. Which would be better? Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Simplified website parameters to have only the domain. Eewilson (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn't being done consistently, and be consistent in how these are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I thought I did. Is this the eFloras again? Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of them include www (eg FN72), while others don't (eg FN79) - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll go through them. Some may have a www in their name and some may not. Eewilson (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Why include both website and publisher when they are nearly identical?

Too thorough? :) Will fix. Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Why repeat publisher in the author parameter?

If the website asks for it to be cited that way, then if the author is the same as the publisher, should I leave the publisher out? If the website asks for both to be included, should I include both? Eewilson (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example from one website. NatureServe Explorer asks for citations formated with NatureServe as the author, publisher, and NatureServe Explorer as the website. Eewilson (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC) "NatureServe. YYYY. NatureServe Explorer [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available https://explorer.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: Month DD, YYYY)."

As long as we provide sufficient information to identify the source, we don't need to follow the format in the source's suggested citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Didn't know that. I'll adjust them. Eewilson (talk) 14:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Catalogue of Life citations (Hassler) are multi-level, hence, complicated.
• I shortened those long and crazy old titles of books.

—Eewilson (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the citations would benefit from some simplification.

• • It's likely. I'll see what I can do.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• • Thanks. I'll take a look at all of this. Eewilson (talk) 01:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Made changes. See above. Awaiting more source review if you have it. Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Simplified more. I think the only outstanding issue is the eFloras one. I will do what you say on that. Please review, and I'm open to any of your suggestions. I'd like to ask, because I am a pretty literal person, could you give me the actual citation numbers for the rest of your input? Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• I was able to set via = eFloras to get rid of all the unnecessary garbage there. Maybe that will do? Eewilson (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Updates.

• Changed "lavender" to "purple".
• Removed location if already mentioned in publisher parameter.
• Spelled out GBIF, IPNI, and ITIS (this will be easy to see in the Diff).
• I chose to go with the www prefix because more worked with it than without. Added www prefix for all website parameters where it would work if the user typed it in that way. There are some for which www isn't appropriate (e.g., explorer.natureserve.com; gobotany.nativeplanttrust.org; data.canadensys.net). I checked every single one of the domain names in the website parameters and made sure they work as they are now.
• Changed "powo.science.kew.org" to the more current "www.plantsoftheworldonline.org" in the url and website parameters.
• Wikilinked a few publishers that needed it since I removed the unneeded authors.
• See § Big messed up publisher for my comments about the big messed up publisher value in FNs 2, 44, 45, 52, 54, 56, 58, 60, 61, 71, 82, and 85. These are all for the International Plant Names Index (IPNI).
• What should I do about the mess in FNs 33 and 35?

Eewilson (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think what you've done for FN2 etc as far as publisher is fine, just take out the "and, " bit. I'm still not clear on why we need to have IPNI listed as the author as well as the work for these, and that goes for a number of others sources as well. For 33/35, could you explain your thinking on why they're set up the way they are at the moment? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Replies

  • FN2 etc: I cleaned up the IPNI publishers. Do you think I should Wikilink those? Seems like that would be consistent. It would be "Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew; Harvard University Herbaria & Libraries; Australian National Botanic Gardens".
    • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FN2 etc: With the IPNI author, after I removed the name and just kept the URL for those, and had removed it from the author field as well, I realized IPNI was no longer spelled out. Does that matter? Let me know.
    • No, doesn't matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay. I'll remove. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FN74: With the citation for "AGM Plants December 2020 RHS - Ornamental", it needs to have the date and honestly, I don't like what happens with dates when there is no author (they move, but likely they are supposed to). So on that one, I put Royal Horticultural Society as the author instead of the publisher (before, I had it in both, plus the website! as you know). I could just deal with it and move it to publisher to be consistent. Your call.
    • No it does not need to have the date! the date is in the title of the work. Gah. Removed author and date params from FN74. Eewilson (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FNs 3, 23, 83: Plants of the World Online - now that I changed the website to www.plantsoftheworldonline.org, POWO is spelled out, so I could remove those as author if you agree.
    • Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Will do. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FN36: USDA, NRCS (2014) does not need the author but does need the year (which would move). Your call.
    • What's your concern with the date? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • If there is no author and there is a date, doesn't the date move to a different location? It doesn't matter. Just making sure that's what is supposed to happen. I'll make the change and we'll see. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FN137: Author TUINSeizoen [Garden Season] - wanted to spell out in English as well.
    • |trans-work=? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll try it. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FNs 18, 20, 29: Question about the University of Waterloo citations. "www.uwaterloo.ca. Waterloo, Ontario: University of Waterloo" is a lot of Waterloo. Not everyone would know that UWaterloo is in Ontario. How do you think I should format this?
    • I refer you to my question above: Why include both website and publisher when they are nearly identical? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Dangit! I can't get the tendency I have toward redundancy out of my head. Maybe the website and then the location as Ontario would do it. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FN93: Chicago Botanic Garden (2021) - we don't really need the date on this one, so I can remove the author.
    • Removed. Eewilson (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FNs 33 and 35: The two Hassler, M. citations via Catalogue of Life. I tried to format it like the website had requested. Bottom line is the data is from Hassler, M. through COL which has all of those editors. Perhaps using "via" isn't the way to go. I could try to do it differently using the editor field, etc., to still have the same information.
    • Okay, I reformatted 33 and 35. They are still long because of all the editors but make more sense and seem to better represent the situation. Eewilson (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Definitely better. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Eewilson (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll make these latest changes immediately. Eewilson (talk) 02:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, all done. Please let me know if there is anything else. Eewilson (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN7: there is a date at the source; is that not the date of the record? (This applies also to other refs from this site).
  • So on these herbarium specimen records, there are many dates: the date the specimen was collected, the date (or dates) it was identified as a certain species by botanist(s) (aka, "determined"), the date it was photographed, the date it was put online, and the date I accessed the online record. There could be another, but I've never seen those recorded, and that would be the date the specimen was preserved/mounted. The date you see on the record for FN7, for example, is verbatim "15 Aug. 1960". That is the date it was collected. You can also view the image which shows that date on the label as well as the text "Det. B.Boivin Feb. 1961". The date is was determined by botanist "B.Boivin". The date I need for my citation, since I am citing the New York Botanical Garden, is the date NYBG put it online, and that isn't available. Some herbaria put it on their records, and some don't. Hence, "n.d." Now, if you think I should just leave the date field out altogether, I could do that, but it could entice someone later to add one of the available dates, which would be wrong. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN33: where is the second part of the title coming from? Why is it formatted differently from FN35?
  • Formatted differently because I didn't pay attention. It comes from the sample bibliographic citation at the bottom of the page for the 2017 reference (FN33) and the bottom of the page "Source dataset" value for the 2020 reference (FN35). They are the same text: "World Plants: Synonymic Checklists of the Vascular Plants of the World". It is the database that fed this data to Catalogue of Life. It should not be italicized, so I will change that formatting for FN35, but I believe it should still be in the part of the citations associated with the link as it is what is "In" the Catalogue of Life and, in that case, similarly to a book chapter or a journal article, it should be inside the quotes as a part of the record we are accessing. I put it at the end of the link title so that the species name would be first. However, the 2009 and 2012 citations have it before the species. I will decide which is better and adjust accordingly. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
• In what cases are you using "n.d.", versus just not filling in the parameter? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course I am inconsistent with this, including the herbarium specimens from BRIT which I put as "2020" but should be "n.d." I'll double check and change them to that. It's likely I just did these at a different time and forgot what was what. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • FN18 has no date added or modified whereas most of the pages cited from uwaterloo.ca Astereae website do. Hence, "n.d." there as well. Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The citations from which I removed the authors, I usually removed the dates if I thought they didn't really matter. However, it's probable that I should have kept some of them. The NatureServe citations for example. They update their data once a month, usually between the 1st and the 4th. If the accessed date is, say, 15 June 2021, then that is the June dataset. But if it was 1 June 2021, it may still be the May dataset. I should have kept those dates. I'll probably just update them as well as any {{As of}} values that apply. I need to go through all of the citations to make sure I didn't remove dates that should have remained. If there is a date, I will put the date. If there is not a date, I will put "n.d." Eewilson (talk) 03:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria Drats. I forgot to comment earlier that I made changes. See what you think. Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify this last point: your intention is that all refs that don't include a date should use n.d.? Or if not, how are you deciding? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
        • To be honest, I'm not sure what I should do. What would be the best thing to do if there is no date? For any reference? Like I said about the herbarium specimens, they have multiple dates, but none of them are the appropriate one. Web pages sometimes have copyright dates, but those aren't necessarily the date the page was written or published or last updated. Books and journals are much easier, and I don't question those. Is there a guideline about that somewhere? Eewilson (talk) 04:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
          • • • I wasn't aware of the n.d. thing myself actually....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
          • I found the instructions. It's in Template:Cite web#Date (and it seems to be the same instructional text in all the Cite templates I checked, at least all of the ones I'm using, so Template:Cite <anything>#Date). Says if there is no date, use n.d.. So, to answer Nikkimaria's question about whether it's my intention for all refs that don't include a date should have n.d., I guess the answer is yes, it is my intention. I'll check again to make sure none are left out. I believe it's inherited from APA and Chicago styles. It is particularly important when using shortened footnotes (sfn) which I would have implemented in this article had I been sfn-savvy when I began it. I decided not to make that change for nearly 150 citations by the time it was at GA. Eewilson (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Dates done. Eewilson (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Volcanoguy

I don't know much about plants but after looking through the article I will support as I didn't find any obvious problems. It is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral and stable. The lead is welcoming to those who don't know much about this plant species. It also has an appropriate structure and all information is backed by inline citations using reliable sources. Good work Eewilson! Volcanoguy 08:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Volcanoguy Thank you! Eewilson (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Need more review?

@FAC coordinators: Are we good to go or do we need another review? Eewilson (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

At this stage I would be looking for another substantive review resulting in a support to nail down a consensus to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Does it need to be a Plants person? Casliber & Dracophyllum, should I ask on the Plants Project talk page? Do you know of some reviewers you could send this way? Eewilson (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if @Femkemilene would be able to? Dracophyllum 19:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Femke

Not sure I've got enough time to do a full review, but let's start. It seems like it's only nit-picking left. Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede Clearly written to be easier than the rest of the article.

• whose late-summer and fall appearing flowers are visited by small pollinators and nectar-seeking insects such as sweat bees, miner bees, and hoverflies. Difficult sentence. Maybe "It is a conservationally secure species. Its flowers appear in late summer and fall, and are visited by small pollinators and nectar-seeking insects such as sweat bees, miner bees, and hoverflies.". Femke (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That could work. Back soon. Eewilson (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Done. Eewilson (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Description

• For example, whereas a mature or returning plant, or one late in the season, may have one or more stiff stems that reach close to maximum height with several arching branches and multiple clusters of flowers, or inflorescences, an early or first-year plant may have one short and somewhat floppy stem with several large leaves and end abruptly with one flower head in the center Split into two or three sentences. Femke (talk) 17:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Done, maybe. Split into two but could be simplified? Suggestions welcomed. Eewilson (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Diploid, tetraploid, hexaploid, and octaploid cytotypes with respective chromosome counts of 16, 32, 48, and 64 have been reported.[13]: 836  -> Maybe stupid question, but is that like during cell division, or are there actually plants with 64 chromosomes? Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • So in this species, x = 8, with x being the base number, 8 chromosomes, and typicaly you can count on most species being at least diploid, or having two sets in total, two sets of those 8 (one from each parent) is 16 chromosomes. In plants which have tested at 32 or 64, it means that there were 4 sets (8 times 4) or 6 or 8 sets, or whatever your number is. In humans, we have 46 in total, or 23 pairs. One set from male and one from female parent. In the case of the polyploidy with plants like this one, I'm fuzzy on how and when it happens, but you can end up with more than two sets. (The Wikipedia articles on those subjects need work.) In this genera, polyploidy is common which makes determining some species' evolution difficult. Sometimes it only can be surmised based on morphology rather than DNA testing. The latter can help only in a broad sense in some cases. Out of scope of this article, obviously, but asters are complicated. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

    Maybe you can say that plants have been found with X chromosomes, rather than using the jargon cytotypes? Femke (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• "They average 4–5 mm (3⁄20–1⁄5 in) long". -> in length. I don't think the grammar works. Femke (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Edited directly. Femke (talk) 07:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• I've always wondered if these tiny measurements of inches are actually used in the US. I was under the impression that mm start being used from a certain threshold. If they aren't really used, consider scrapping them to make your text shorter, and therefore easier to read. Up to you. Femke (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • So you say I can remove all measurement conversions at the mm level? Because they are not useful and I would LOVE to remove them. I mean, if something is that small, we'd probably say "less than a fourth of an inch" or "less than an eighth of an inch" and forget precision. So, if I can remove the mm to Imperial conversions, you've made my day. Eewilson (talk) 08:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The MOS gives a few exceptions where conversion is optional rather than obligatory (MOS:CONVERSIONS):
      • "But in science-related articles, supplying such conversion is not required unless there is some special reason to do so."
      • If it's excessive (which I think you could argue here), you can also leave it out. The first mention of mm could then have a note explaining the conversion factor. Femke (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • It's definitely excessive, and at one time I didn't have them for the mm at all, but put them back in during GA review. I didn't think they were useful for the small measurements then, and still don't. So I have begun with leaves. If you are there, you can go look at that to see if it will work. Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Leaves. Eewilson (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Okay, they are all done except in the section Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Cultivars, which has a few mm measurements of the widths of flower heads because they came from the Royal Horticultural Society website which is in the UK. I thought the conversions for the cultivar flower heads should stay before, and still do, because this section is less about the botany and more about the gardening... what do you think? I can change them, no sweat. Let me know. Eewilson (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Those convert pretty well except for 'Daisy Bush' which is a troublesome one at 20 mm wide. Sigh. Eewilson (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

          For consistency, I would delete those conversions too. Femke (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

          Done. Eewilson (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• The hair is usually in vertical lines, particularly on the inflorescence branches . I don't know if this means they are grouped in a line, or they are themselves straight. Femke (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • It means they grow in lines vertically along the stem and branches.... I could change it to something closer to that? Eewilson (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, I changed it to this, but I'm not sure it's much better. See what you think. "The hair usually grows in vertical lines, particularly on the inflorescence branches." Eewilson (talk) 09:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• American-asters -> You sure there should be a hyphen there?
  • It's in the source from gobotany (I wouldn't do it, but the source did). Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I did a bit of a Google, and couldn't find another source using a hyphen. I assume it's just a typo, so let's not repeat that here :). Femke (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • It's not a typo for that website and the Symphyotrichum species, but it's possible they made it up with the hyphen. I'll see if I can find a better source that uses it without a hyphen. Eewilson (talk) 08:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, so I removed it from the "sometimes called American-asters" part for the genus, but kept it as one of the common names for the species ("calico American-aster") with citation to Native Plant Trust (gobotany) Eewilson (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• two-and-a-half years -> pretty sure there should not be hyphens there.
  • okay, fixed. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• infraspecies? Maybe start the paragraph with a short sentence on what an infraspecies is.
  • I'll look into it. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • How about these two intro sentences: An infraspecies is a taxon below the species rank. It can be a subspecies, variety, or form, and a species can have multiple infraspecies.? I need to find a citation, but that's my proposed addition. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Actually, more like this: An infraspecies is a taxon below the species rank. It can be a subspecies, variety, subvariety, form, or subform, and a species can have multiple infraspecies. Eewilson (talk) 06:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

      Works. Femke (talk) 08:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

      • Okay, I changed it and added a source. I added a quote in the source using ellipses and tried to follow MOS:ELLIPSIS. Could you double check? FN31. Eewilson (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• The word aster was used to describe a star-like flower as early as 1542 in German physician and botanist Leonhart Fuchs' book De historia stirpium commentarii insignes. -> Difficult to parse. "The word aster was used to describe a star-like flower as early as 1542 in De historia stirpium commentarii insignes, a book by the German physician and botanist Leonhart Fuchs'". Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay, could work. I tend to complicate things. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Done. Eewilson (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ecology

• "Symphyotrichum lateriflorum is considered a weed species in Canada and the United States, but, say Canadian botanists Jerry G. Chmielewski and John C. Semple, "probably the least weedy of the weedy aster species in Canada."" Had to read this sentence three times before it made sense. Can it be split? Maybe into: ""Symphyotrichum lateriflorum is considered a weed species in Canada and the United States. It is not considered a noxious weed in either country. Canadian botanists Jerry G. Chmielewski and John C. Semple called it "probably the least weedy of the weedy aster species in Canada."" Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • haha - makes perfect sense to me, but yeah, you're right. I'll fix. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Done. Eewilson (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• pre-settlement natural community?
  • It's a thing in the Americas, particularly used in ecological-speak circles referring to North America, or the US - the way a plant and animal community was before Europeans came in and wiped it all away. There are some ecosystems left called "pre-settlement natural communities" - basically same as the next bullet point... Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
• remnant natural areas? I'd prefer explanation rather than a wikilink.
  • I'll see what I can do for this one and the previous one. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, try this and if you have even better ideas, let me know:

"S. lateriflorum has coefficients of conservatism (C-value) in the Floristic Quality Assessment (FQA) that range from 1 to 10 depending on evaluation region. The lower the C-value, the higher tolerance the species has for disturbance. In the case of a low C-value, there is lesser likelihood that the plant is growing in an undisturbed or remnant habitat with native flora and fauna. For example, in the Atlantic coastal pine barrens of Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island, S. lateriflorum has been given a C-value of 1, meaning its presence in locations of that ecoregion provides little or no confidence of a remnant habitat. In contrast, in the Dakotas, S. lateriflorum has a C-value of 10, meaning its populations there are not weedy and are restricted to only remnant habitats which have a very low tolerance to environmental degradation."

—Eewilson (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• An adaptive mechanism of S. lateriflorum is its flower heads "go to sleep" at night. -> "As an adaptive mechanism, its flower heads "go to sleep" at night"
  • yeah, better. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Done. Eewilson (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• It has been surmised that this is to protect and preserve the pollen within -> "This may help protect and preserve the pollen within"?
  • I'll look. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Done. Eewilson (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Overall, reproduction is jargon-heavy. Possible to make it easier?
  • hmm... I'll see. Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @Femkemilene: Could you take a look at the two paragraphs at Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Florets? It is where the sexual reproduction terms are introduced, also with some jargon but with Wikilinks. That and the Reproduction section are consistent in term usage (or should be). While we don't have to educate the reader about plant reproduction in this article, I was still hoping to hit on how it works in this plant (which is how it works for the entire genus). I am not sure there are layperson's terms for pistil, style, stigma, stamen, anther, and filiments, and explaining each part may be out of scope or tangential. How can I resolve this conundrum? Suggestions welcomed. Eewilson (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Cleaned up jargon from 2nd paragraph of Reproduction. I think it may be better. Still looking at others. Eewilson (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Do you think a microscopic image of stigma and style would help? I could also add a better description. Something like this, which comes from the article Gynoecium.

Or better yet, I could derive some content from this (minus the floral diagrams), which comes from the Asteraceae article.

Eewilson (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• • • • 2nd paragraph is now high-quality text!
      • I'm struggling with The disk floret's stigma remains closed while pollen remains on the style, but after it has been collected and carried off, the style begins to split, opening so that the disk floret ovary becomes accessible to receive pollen from another plant.. You use the word remain twice. I find this sentence very difficult to parse. I think it's a relatively simple concept you try to convey here. Femke (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
      • When you can't avoid jargon, you can always simplify sentence structure, so that people only have to rack their brains for one thing at a time.
      • Another thing nice for lay readers, but not too distracting for more expert readers is to contrast the reproduction with a normal, if such a normal exists. What is unique about this genus?
      • Pictures always help, but feel free to do what you think is best. The first one may be too close-up to give lay readers a feeling for what it is. Femke (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Pollinators & Pests are easy to understand :). Femke (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • :) Eewilson (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, I'm fading for now. Need a nap, and I'll get back to it a bit later. I have some diagrams we can try. I'll remove the rest of the conversions from mm later. Not sure about removing the diploid, etc. Have to sleep on that. I'm trying to think of a reason to keep and a reason to remove and I got nothing. Nothing but fried. Later... Eewilson (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not suggesting removing the word diploid. It's too cool a fact to remove it. It just needs a tid bit of simplification. Have a good nap. Close to supporting. Femke (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think you should have said, "Good luck with the nap." No luck. I misread – you were suggesting I change the word cytotypes to something simpler? That makes sense. I'm not even sure if I fully know what it means. :) Eewilson (talk) 14:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Finally got some sleep. I'll try to implement the rest of the things tonight with the hopes it will be ready for you to give it a good look Sunday, or when you can. Eewilson (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Femkemilene: In all its glory, available once again for your reading pleasure, the article. The latest changes might be my most exceptional plain and easily understood Wikipedia writing to date. There is a new diagram in Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Fruit with a See also there to the Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Reproduction section which has rewritten text and two more new diagrams. Here is the link for the diffs to guide you. All suggestions always welcomed, or if not, you will never know.

  Still a bit confused on the change you want in the DNA section. Please elaborate on what you mean so I know for sure.

  —Eewilson (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Brilliantly done! It was a pleasure working with you. I've directly changed a few bits in the text, see whether you like it. Femke (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you! Your tweaks look great. I put the x=8 bit in parentheses after saying "base number of eight chromosomes" like this: "Symphyotrichum lateriflorum has a base number of eight chromosomes (x = 8)." I think it works. You really did a great job at this review, and I will be a better writer because of it. Eewilson (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  Was having a convo with Peter coxhead on the talk page for Infraspecific name (see Talk:Infraspecific name#Needs work to actually define "infraspecies"). When adding the sentence regarding the meaning of infraspecies, I discovered (or rediscovered) that it redirected to Infraspecific name. Not quite the same thing. So I posed the comment and he answered. His comments made me decide to go straight with Varieties and just put the explanation of Infraspecies in an efn at the one time we come to that word in var. hirsuticaule. Just a little last minute change... Eewilson (talk) 09:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

All done now?

@FAC coordinators: this article has had some superb reviewers! Anyone else needed or are we finished? :) Eewilson (talk) 10:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

This article has so many images. Maybe remove those that aren't necessary? 61.205.249.123 (talk) 11:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Somehow this has managed not to collect a first-timer's source to text spot check. I shall add it to requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I figured it just slipped through and that you'd catch it. I'm just waiting :) Eewilson (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot-checks — Pass

Version reviewed — this

• Ref#1 — OK for first two uses. For the statement "NatureServe lists Symphyotrichum lateriflorum as Secure (G5) worldwide and Critically Imperiled (S1) in Kansas and Nebraska." — I see NatureServe listing it S1 in Kansas, but not in Nebraska. Am I missing anything? (link)
  • It was augmented by ref #39, but for clarity I moved ref #1 for the global part and used #39 (var. lateriflorum) for the states. Eewilson (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Ref#3 — OK for all 9 uses, including the map. (link)
• Ref#9 — OK, as the image matches. (link; direct link)
• Ref#15 — OK for all 4 uses.
  • OK for page no. 29 (link)
  • OK for page no. 30, but for the statement "As the ray floret is blooming, the stigma at the top of the style splits into two lobes to allow pollen to access the ovary", I'll suggest adding page no. 31 in the range, both the pages have the content. (link for 30; link for 31)
    • Done. Eewilson (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
• Ref#19 — OK (link)
• Ref#27 — OK (link)
• Ref#40 — OK (link)
• Ref#44 — OK (link)
• Ref#52 — I don't understand Latin, but the term "costâ subtùs hirsutissimâ" seem to be in the book on that page number, so I'll AGF on foreign language. (link)
• Ref#58 — OK (link)
• Ref#67 — I don't understand Latin, nor do I understand French sorry!, but the term "Aster horizontalis" and "ramuli horizontales", both seem to be on that page number, so I'll AGF on foreign language. (link)
• Ref#73 — OK (link)
• Ref#85 — OK (link)
• Ref#98 — OK (link)
• Ref#101 — OK (link)
• Ref#103 — OK (link)
• Ref#111 — OK (link)
• Ref#116 — OK (link)
• Ref#121 — OK (link)
• Ref#137 — OK (link)

@Eewilson – Overall, spot-checks looks great. Just clarification needed on a few points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh I think I got them. Thank you! Eewilson (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Pass for spot-checks. Any review here would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 October 2021 [58].

---

Grant's Canal

Nominator(s): Hog Farm _Talk 05:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

In mid-1862, the Union decided that the city of Vicksburg could not be taken with the forces on hand, so they decided to bypass Vicksburg with a canal (in the process breaking local law which forbade messing with the river's path). Disease and low water levels doomed that attempt. In early 1863, another attempt on Vicksburg had fizzled out and the canal idea was tried again. This time, there was too much water and everything flooded, in addition to another round of disease. After the war, the Mississippi perversely cut a similar path on its own, although the government has since reverted the river back. This article passed GAN in January and WP:MILHIST a-class review earlier this month. Hog Farm _Talk 05:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Suggest scaling up the Vicksburg defenses map
  • Done
• Don't use fixed px size
  • I've replaced this with |upright=1.4
• Suggest adding alt text
  • Done
• File:The_head_of_the_canal,_opposite_Vicksburg,_Miss.,_now_being_cut_by_Command_of_Gen._Grant_(cropped).jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've added an Internet Archive link to confirm that this was indeed published in March 1863. I've also added (which is supported by the link added for the date) that this comes from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper

• Nikkimaria Are these changes satisfactory? Hog Farm _Talk 20:27, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Harry

This is an interesting article. I like transport and military engineering but hadn't heard of this.

• Do we need such precision as (2.01 km) or 1.33 miles (2.14 km) with a depth of 13 feet (4.0 m) [...] as short as 0.75 miles (1.21 km) in a non-scientific article? You can set the concert template to round as desired.
  • I've set this to round to one significant figure; is this better? The more exact mile figures are meant to be approximations of fractions in the sources Hog Farm _Talk 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• one Union doctor to state that the swamps contained "as much death to the square inch as would be possible for the laboratory of nature to compound". If the doctor's opinion is significant enough to mention here, you should name him. Also, you need a ref straight after a quote.
  • I've removed the quote, as on second thought I'm not sure that it's significant enough to call out directly. (the source simply attributes it to "a regimental surgeon"). Hog Farm _Talk 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
• I get the impression that the canal didn't ultimately have much effect on anything but was an interesting side project, though the article doesn't seem to quite seem to spell this out. Is there a source that can be used to support such a statement? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @HJ Mitchell: - Looking for something. It's a consensus of RS to call this a failure, but none seem to take the direct step of saying that this accomplished nothing (which is true). I've added a quote from Sherman to kinda underscore that nothing came of it. Sources generally move straight on from discussing this one to the next one, without much retrospective, except for Bastian, who views it as something that almost worked. Hog Farm _Talk 03:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Harry, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, thought I'd been back to this. Support, an excellent article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 05:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

I supported this article at A-class, and affirm that I believe that it meets the Featured Article criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Hog Farm _Talk 17:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from David Fuchs

Forthcoming, marking here so I remember to circle back :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC) Overall I think this is a solid article and a decent shot from FA quality. Especially being from Virginia my Civil War history in regards to the Western Theater is weak, so I quite enjoyed this little vignette of civil engineering failure from Vicksburg :) General thoughts:

• I think File:Grants Canal detail.jpg makes a much better lead image than File:The head of the canal, opposite Vicksburg, Miss., now being cut by Command of Gen. Grant (cropped).jpg, given that it explains the lead text geography much better.
  • Alternatively or additionally, it seems like there should be amble free geographic imagery of the contemporary historical era to make a clearer map to make things easier to follow? Things like the canal itself, De Soto Point, and what part is what state are not labeled clearly on the detail shot. In that sense, File:Vicksburg and its defences (5961384096) (cropped).jpg (with an added line for the canal) is a superior image for clearly labeling things like De Soto point and the railroad that come up in prose (it also seems to be a more topographically accurate map with regards to the location of Vicksburg.)
    • @David Fuchs: - What do you think about a cropped version of File:36 of 'History of the American Civil War, etc' (11246503236).jpg? I can find some old USGS topographic maps that show good detail, but they're not desirable as they show the river's new course and Delta, Louisiana.
      • If you can highlight the canal a bit better (might do with some contrast adjustments) I think that would work well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Not quite sure how to do those adjustments, but was able to find and pull File:Map of operations in the Chickasaw Bayou region near Vicksburg, MS.jpg, which shows the canal and railroad with higher quality. I could also crop some of the irrelevant map area from the top. Hog Farm _Talk 16:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
          • Yep I think that's the clearest option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
            • Done
• My major stumbling block on the prose throughout is what I think is overuse of passive voice, e.g. the following example: Another attempt on the city was made in June. This time Williams brought a 3,200-man force. Williams's infantrymen, Farragut's navy ships, and a group of ships armed with mortars commanded by Commodore David Dixon Porter left the city of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on June 20. Five days later, the Vicksburg area was reached. I don't really see the reason for the passive constructions given what's being said, so "Williams attempted to capture the city in June with 3,200 men" or "They reached the Vicksburg area five days later" would be simpler.
  • I've adjusted "they reached the Vicksburg area five days later". I've gone with something a little different for the Williams one, to prevent giving the impression that Williams actually directly attacked Vicksburg
  • "and that the enough infantrymen would not be released "—the "needed" infantrymen? Required? "Enough" doesn't seem the right word here.
    • How about "the needed number of"?
  • "However, Williams actually only intended" this "however" doesn't really scan as the previous sentence disrupts the flow from the talk about emancipation. I would move the "treated them harshly" bit after this sentence about completing the canal for their freedom, instead.
    • Done
  • "A river current would cut through the sand, but not the clay, it was thought, " you've already got an 'it was thought' in the sentence before so this sounds clunky.
    • Rephrased
  • It's unexplained in the text, and I'm left wondering why the river's height was decreasing—was this just a usual summer occurrence?
    • It was expected to rise in June, which I've added
  • "The steamboat Catahoula was sent to the area in January 1863 under the command of a Lieutenant Wilson to scout the remains of the canal cut." Not entirely clear whether this is a Union or Confederate steamboat/soldier (I presume Union, but the last named party are the Confederates.)
    • Clarified
  • "Grant sent a message to Halleck on March 4 stating that the canal was only days from completion, and the second dredging boat arrived the next day.[50] The dam holding the upstream end of the canal failed on March 7, inundating the canal.[37]" this paragraph meanders, and I don't think it does an adequate job demonstrating how big or small a setback the failure of the levee was; if it was small, it should probably be shortened, and if it was bigger it should have greater emphasis.
    • I've added a bit, and tried to tie together the various items better. Is this an improvement? Hog Farm _Talk 04:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "Grant wrote on March 22 that he doubted that the canal would be useful, and noted that Confederate artillery had been positioned to fire down the exit end of the canal.[53] Two days later, the dredges were withdrawn. Grant's canal had been a failure.[54] On March 27, Halleck was informed that the project had ended.[55]" It's weird that we get news that the dredges were withdrawn (which presumably would happen concurrent with or after the project was ended, and it's weird that it doesn't actually tell us if it was Grant's decision or not (again, unclear passive constructions.)
    • I've tried to clarify that by this point, the dredges were the main arm of the project, which is why their withdrawal was significant. Sources aren't clear as to who specifically authorized the dredges to withdraw, but it was because their civilian crews objected to coming under fire, and I've added that. Hog Farm _Talk 04:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • "After Vicksburg surrendered, the Confederate garrison of Port Hudson, Louisiana, followed suit, giving the Union full control of the Mississippi River.[60] In April 1876, the Mississippi River changed course"—it's weird to me the article doesn't detail how important the fall of Vicksburg was to the course of the war or mention when the war ended before jumping ahead more than ten years.
    • I have expanded upon this
  • "Historian Shelby Foote included the canal in a list of seven failed attempts before Grant successfully took Vicksburg." This sentence reads weirdly to me, like it's just a left-over trivia factoid from a listicle. The relevance to me seems to be demonstrating how the canal was just one approach Grant took (relateing to the Bearss mention in the previous sentence) so I feel like that should be emphasized, perhaps by merging the sentences together or otherwise making them flow better.
    • I've tried to phrase these two together in a more coherent way, is it an improvement?
• References: on the whole, quality reliable sources seem to be used and generally don't neglect much of the subject.
  • In a cursory search of my library databases and Gscholar/books, I did notice Campaigns for Vicksburg, 1862-63, The: Leadership Lessons (Kevin Dougherty, 2011), which I note from the snippet previews I can generate seems to have some useful content to better frame some of the action described in the article; it mentions Grant's initial reticence about the course of action, and also does a bit of a better job in terms of framing the action (it suggests that the levee breach was catastrophic setback.) It also has a bit more on the other canal projects beyond the Duckport canal, which seem like they would be useful to summarize in the "Aftermath" section. Given that some elements I spot there don't seem to be reflected in the usage from the other sources, it feels like this might be an important inclusion for comprehensiveness.
    • I was able to access an e-book copy through the university I graduated from and have added some material from it
  • As a random aside looking through contemporary papers saved in Proquest, it seems like everyone assumed Grant's canal would be a success (The Richmond Daily Dispatch was estimating in early February it'd be done in three to four weeks.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• @David Fuchs: - I think I've made attempts at all the requested changes. Are they all to your satisfaction, or is further work needed? Hog Farm _Talk 23:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey Hog, I've gone through and done a line edit pass—do check and make sure I didn't change any meaning. My remaining point is with this passage: "After Farragut's determination, a canal known as Williams's Canal that was being built across De Soto Point gained new importance [...]" The following paragraphs give an indication of why De Soto Point was chosen for the canal, but the prose goes from the government prohibiting anything from altering the course of the river, to the Union attempt to make a canal there. I'm left wondering what this "William's Canal" actually is (was there a plan to put a canal there that was shot down by the mandate from Mississippi?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @David Fuchs: - I've removed the bit about the law and it is liable to be confusing and is somewhat irrelevant, as the Union could just ignore Confederate state laws. I've tried to clarify what Williams's Canal was; is this better? Hog Farm _Talk 21:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I did some additional rewording to try and make it flow a bit better. I believe my concerns have been addressed so am supporting. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

-

Source review - pass

Recusing to review.

• Shouldn't Bastian 1974 be before Bastian 1995?
  • Reordered

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: - Thanks for the review! I couldn't find much more in the way of additional sourcing, either. Hog Farm _Talk 17:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Ian Rose: - As this one is coming along smoothly (passed image and source reviews and three supports), may I have a dispensation for a second one? Hog Farm _Talk 17:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Please do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Z1720

Non-expert prose review:

• "Winfield Scott, Commanding General of the United States Army developed the" Comma after Army
  • Added
• "a move that proved to be politically unpopular." -> a move that was politically unpopular?
  • Added
• "Nevertheless, both Farragut and the commander of the ironclads, Flag Officer Charles Davis," Delete "Nevertheless, both"
  • Done
• "In 1853, engineer Charles Ellet Jr. had determined that the Mississippi" Delete had
  • Removed
• "and supplies of quinine ran out." -> and supplies of quinine to treat malaria ran out. This allows the reader to understand what quinine is without clicking on the link.
  • Done, linking malaria in the process
• "Yet another digging project" Delete yet, starting to get into editorialising in Wikivoice that these are a lot of projects, and the word is unnecessary.
  • Done
• I checked the lede to ensure everything was in the article and found no concerns.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Thanks for the review! All of these should be addressed now. Hog Farm _Talk 02:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comments have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 October 2021 [59].

---

Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Many years ago I gathered a mass of material in both English and French on the World War II campaign in southern France, but never got to work on it owing to my loss of admin status. However, I have used it here to create another article in a series on Allied logistics in the campaigns in north west Europe during World War II. The campaign in southern France has not attracted as much attention as those in the north, and its volume in the Green Books series was not published until 1993, over twenty years after than the last of those about the campaigns in northern France (by a historian who had already completed a volume in the Vietnam series). The article was fairly well received when it appeared on the front page at DYK back in March, and has since passed GA and A class reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "civil affairs food supplies had to be given additional priority" I'm not quite clear what civil affairs food supplies are.

  Changed to "food supplies for the civilian population". Linked civil affairs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The October fighting demonstrated that the German propensity for hard fighting had not been underestimated," can the double use of "fighting"be avoided?

  Changed the first to "battles". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The prospect of an Allied invasion of southern France was considered at the Trident Conference in May 1943" what does "the prospect of" add? I'd cut it unless there's some nuance I'm missing.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  " Tehran Conference"/" Tehran conference" Which?

  Captalised, matching its article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  " that had stockpiled for Anvil" I would add a "been" before stockpiled.

  Correct. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  " In addition to the Allied troops, Italian prisoners of war (POWs) of which around 20,000 would arrive in southern France by the end of September.[25]" Verb missing?

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  The French ships participating created a resupply problem; only 191 rounds of high-capacity ammunition available for its 13.4-inch (340 mm) guns of the French battleship Lorraine.[50]" A "was" seems needed somewhere after the colon.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  "and some vehicles drowned " do vehicles drown? Possibly "sank"?

  Yes, they do. If you drive a vehicle into water, it may foul the engine and electrical systems, which will cause the vehicle to stop. Here in Australia a lot of roads go straight across creek beds, since they don't usually have any water in them. Instead they have a big ruler next to it to tell you how deep the water is. See 15 ways to avoid drowning your 4WD Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  "and a drydock No. 1 was cleared instead." I'm not sure why you need an "a" here.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  Civil affairs is linked twice in close succession.

  Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  "The latter was given priority although it was much steeper, limiting capacity to 125 long tons (127 t) per train, and subject to flooding and to deep snows in the winter, because it was less badly damaged." I might move "because it was less badly damaged"to the start of the sentence.

  Good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  "bids were taken for movement of freight by rail." It's unclear what this means. Bids from private French contractors?

  Uh no. From the commands and agencies wanting their supplies delivered. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  The term POL seems to be used several times before you define it.

  Such a common term. Defined on first use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  "Two trains arrived each day that were unloaded roller conveyors that allowed twelve cars to be unloaded simultaneously. " This seems a bit muddled.

  Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

I will take it on faith that images that are stated to have been taken by a service member in fact were, given the unlikelihood that there were private photographers present.

This states it was created by the Imperial War Museum. This was surely not the case?

It says "Author Tanner (Capt), War Office official photographer" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This has a creation date listed of 2015.

Changed to "late 1943 or early 1944" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

On this, perhaps it could be stressed which D-Day is being referred to.

Changed to "15 August 1944". I think I just pasted the original caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

For the maps taken from The Corps of Engineers: The War Against Germany, one gives a date of 1993, the other 1 January 1993.

They both say "1993". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

On this, is 1 January 1944 an accurate date?

It just says "1944". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Something odd going on here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the image pages at Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• Plans for Anvil called for landing 151,151 personnel and 19,271 vehicles on the first day. In the first 45 days, 478,931 personnel and 74,386 vehicles would be landed I'm curious about the precision here. Did someone arrive at the conclusion that 74,387 would be too many but 74,385 would be too few? And do we need that level of precision in an encyclopaedia article? Personally, I think the reader might find it a little dense but I guess it's a matter of personal preference.

  Here's how it is done: Each type of unit has a Table of Organisation and Equipment (TOE). These are numbered (eg. 7-15 - infantry battalion). The TOE specifies how many personnel, what equipment and how many vehicles it has. It also lists the weight and shipping space it requires. Then you take the troop list and the manual of TOEs and add them up. You wind up with very specific figures. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  As to why I prefer to do things this way: years of trying to paraphrase others, particularly the Australian Dictionary of Biography, have led me to prefer the most detailed figures and dates, which provides maximum flexibility to anyone trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Each day five units of fire would arrive What's a unit of fire?

  The explanation immediately follows: "This was a somewhat arbitrary measurement for accounting purposes, and was different for each type of ammunition. It was 60 rounds for the M1 carbine, 150 for the M1 Garand rifle, 750 for the M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) and 900 for the M1919 Browning machine gun." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• by the end of June some forty logistical units believe that should be 40 (in numerals) per MOS:NUMERAL

  WP:NUMERAL: "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reserves of ammunition for American ships was → reserves were or ammunition was

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• with its cargo set to Camel Red → sent?

  Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• had caused ammunition to be loaded on top not sure "cause" is the verb I'd use for what was a human decision with a seemingly sound rationale

  Re-worded to "in the expectation that there would be heavy fighting, ammunition was loaded on top" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• According to the plan newly-arrived service units needs a comma after "plan"

  Deleted "According to the plan". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• flew out from the UK to Italy via Gibraltar and Marrakesh was the circuitous route to avoid overflying enemy territory or because of the capabilities of the aircraft? Or some other reason?

  Yes. Added: "to avoid overflying German-occupied France and neutral Spain" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• So that each glider would a pilot and a copilot missing word?

  Yes. Added: "have". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• newly-arrived units no need for a hyphen with -ly adverbs

  Removed per MOS:HYPHEN: Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Captain Carl W. Bills, an Oklahoma oil man who, despite his lowly military rank, became the technical supervisor of the pipeline system is £depsite his lowly rank" from the source? It sounds like editorialising in Wikipedia's voice.

  Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• The expectation that there would be heavy fighting had caused ammunition to be loaded on ships on top of rations You mention this further up, almost word for word.

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• The 3rd Infantry Division, limited expenditure not sure that comma is supposed to be there? Also, you've given the full name in the previous sentence; "the division" would probably suffice.

  Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• what was actually shipped did not always coincided with what "actually" is almost always redundant, and is "coincided" a typo?

  Yes. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ammunition expenditures in November were high, with Seventh Army's 648 105 mm howitzers firing as tempting as it is, using ", with" like that should be avoided in professional-quality prose

  Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• 2,684 M1911}} .45-caliber pistols looks like you held the shift key down too long!

  This keyboard is a bit "sticky". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Allied planners could be faulted by whom? Without attribution, that sounds like an editorial statement in Wikipedia's voice.

  Clarke and Dworak. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Overall excellent, as always, just a few minor quibbles but I'm sure nothing that you won't be able to address easily. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to provide a review. This is much appreciated. I think I have addressed all the issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation on TOEs; you learn something new every day! All my concerns (which were minor to begin with) have been addressed so I'm happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Zawed

Lead

• In the lead, suggest making it explicit that it was the Seventh Army that landed on 15 August and also rewording so that the two dates don't end/start together.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also suggest swapping the order of the final two sentences of the lead so that the are chronological.

  Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Planning

• Wilson's AFHQ: suggest writing out AFHQ. I know what the HQ is but not sure about AF...Advanced Field?

  Allied Force Headquarters. ASdded, with link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Giens and Cap Benat... link these?

  Linked the former; no article on the latter unfortunately. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• These were remedied in March 1944 with the arrival of Lieutenant General Alexander Patch. "These" being multiple vacancies so presumably it was some of his staff that also helped remedy these, not just him in isolation.

  Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Base 901

• ...and to that end a list of the required logistical units was drawn up, but although a list of the required units was drawn up,... something wrong here

  Re-worded to remove the repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Fourth paragraph, there is repeated usage of "only when" in successive sentences in the middle portion.

  Re-word to make it read smoother. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Base 901 was assigned to Coastal Base Section unless I missed, this is where the abbreviation CBS should be introduced.

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest working in at some point in the last paragraph the renaming of Anvil to Dragoon, to prepare the reader for the transition to Dragoon in the following section.

  The article says: "The Combined Chiefs of Staff changed the operation's codename to Dragoon on 1 August." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Zawed (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Assault: seaborne

• This allowed the Seventh Army and Beach Control Group to... previous mention of the Beach Control Group is in lower case; the singular form is also confusing as there are multiple beach control groups.

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Beach Control Group assumed overall responsibility for the operation the beaches... something missing here, maybe of after operation?

  Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Although the ships were combat loaded... the use of "Although" doesn't seem right as I would expect ammunition to be loaded up top to be disembarked first? Perhaps "Because"?

  Tweaked wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Coastal Base Section assumed responsibility use abbreviation and elsewhere in the following sections?

  Abbreviated some occurrences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ports: Port-de-Bouc

• 9 wounded on Tackle. Tackle was towed to Toulon... to avoid the back to back usage of Tackle, suggest: "9 wounded on Tackle. Towed to Toulon, Tackle's crew and salvage...}}

  Concatenated sentences to avoid repetition. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Supply and services: POL

• to just north of Avignon. From the 701st Engineer... I think possibly a missing word after "From"; perhaps "here"?

  Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That's my review done. I also made a few edits to the article as I went through to correct what I felt were obvious typos/grammar issues rather than raise them here. Zawed (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I think I have addressed all your points. Thanks for the review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, am happy to support. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do soon. Hog Farm _Talk 13:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Allied logistics in the Southern France campaign, Young is published by a weaker publisher but looks fine per WP:SPS Sources looks reliable enough for what they are citing Formatting is acceptable. Source review is passed; spot checks not done. Hog Farm _Talk 16:05, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Pendright

Lead:

• On 12 September, the US Seventh Army made contact with Allied forces which had landed in Normandy earlier that year as part of Operation Overlord.

  "that" had landed "at" Normandy

  Changed "which" to "that". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• The unexpectedly rapid Allied advance was the principal cause of logistical problems, although a theater-wide shortage of service units and an unanticipated dearth of French civilian labor also contributed.

  "death" of French civilian labor -> Giving death its ordinary meaning, its use here seems out of place

  "Dearth" is correct; see wikt:dearth. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Background:

• Additional assault shipping Eisenhower required for Overlord was sent from the Mediterranean.[6]

  Think about beginning the sentence with the definite article and inserting that between shipping and Eiesemnhower

  Thought about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• In April, the British chiefs suddenly announced that they were in favor of Anvil after all, to which the Commander-in-Chief, United States Fleet, Admiral Ernest King replied that his offer to withdraw ships from the Pacific was still good.[9]

  Did King deliver on his promise?

  Yes. Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Planning:

• All were far from perfect, being separated by cliffs and rock outcrops, backed by dominating high ground, and possessing only restricted entries and exits.[16]
  • All "what" were far from perfect?

    I thought it was obvious, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Drop the comma after ground

    Oxford comma. Retained for clarity. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• The departure of Lieutenant General George S. Patton for the United Kingdom along with key members of the staff left numerous vacancies at Seventh Army headquarters.
  • Add the definte article between at and Seventh Army

    I think it reads better without. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

    the staff -> was it "his" staff?

    the staff from Seventh Army's point of view. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• By 1 August, 162 personnel were assigned to the Coastal Base Section headquarters, and 532 to the 21st Port, although some were still serving with their former units.[24]

  Drop the comma after headquarters

  • Dropped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Of these, 43,406 would come from North Africa, 24,015 from Italy[,] and 4,989 from Corsica; 55,772 would be American and 16,638 French.

  The sentence refers to three countries and two nationalities?

  • Three geographic regions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• They were organized into Italian Service Units of 250 men and commanded by Italian officers and non-commissioned officers.

  non-commissioned -> noncommissioned

  Removed hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• The logistics plan provided for five days' supply of Class I (subsistence) and III (petrol, oil and lubricants) every three days, thus building up reserves by two days every three. For Class V (ammunition), the troops would land with five units of fire.[29]

  petrol -> gasoline

  Changed to POL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Base 901

• Requests for equipment from US sources was frequently denied because the items were unobtainable, or because the War Department deemed them non-essential, or simply because the French failed to submit the required paperwork in a timely manner.[38]
  • was -> were

    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• non-essential -> nonessential

  Removed hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Mounting

• Reserves of ammunition for American ships were carried by the ammunition ships USS Nitro, which came from the United Kingdom, and Mount Baker, which sailed from the United States.
  • Change were to was and amunition ships to ship

    Two ships. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  • "which came from the United Kingdom, and Mount Baker, which sailed from the United States"? -> Think about rephrasing this

Seaborne:

• A sand bar at Alpha Yellow caused LSTs to beach prematurely, and some vehicles drowned before a ponton causeway was erected.
  • sand bar -> sandbar

    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• some, many, or a few LSTs were beached?

  Some. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  some vehicles drowened -> submereged seems more apt?

  That is not the same thing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Motor cranes, A-frames mounted on DUKWs and 6x6 trucks with Quickway cranes were then used to lift the cargo onto trucks, which took it to a dump where it was unloaded using a crane.
  • dump -> dump site

    "Dump" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• There was a general shortage of cargo nets owing to too many ships being unloaded at once, too few trucks to move the cargo to the dumps, and insufficient personnel to unload the cargo at the dump sites.[58]

  owning to -> because of (meaning the same thing) drops a to

  "Owing" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Dump sites were selected before the landing from aerial photographs based on their accessibility to road and rail transport, and the area available for storage facilities, but when reconnaissance teams surveyed the dump area after the landing, large numbers of land mines were discovered, which had to be removed before the area could be used for storage.
  • This could be a good introductory to dump sites?
  • landing and area references should be plural?

    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Could drop the comma after transport?

    Oxford comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Since the dump sites are not definite, I wonder about the use of the?
• Some of the dump areas were found to become swampy after rain, and had to be moved to higher and drier ground, which often lacked the access to transport.[58]
  • Also introductory?
• Between 15 August and 8 September 265,939 long tons (270,206 t) of supplies and 46,505 vehicles were landed over the beaches.
  • over or "on?

    "Over" is correct. "On" would mean that they were dumped there, which was not the case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• About 33,000 POWs and 6,200 casualties were evacuated.[58]
  • This does mpt transistion well?

    Not sure what you are asking here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• By 14 September the beach dumps held 11,740 long tons (11,930 t) of subsistence, 8,821 long tons (8,963 t) of petrol, oil and lubricants (POL), and 58,488 long tons (59,427 t) of ammunition. Another 10,252 long tons (10,417 t) of POL were held at Marseille and Port de Bouc.[26]
  • petrol -> gasoline

    Changed to "POL", now that it is defined earlier. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Airborne:

• Within 48 hours all the airborne objectives had been taken and the airborne forces had linked up with the seaborne ones.[63]
  • objectives had been "taken" -> why not met or achieved?

    "Taken" is correct. It means that they have been captured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Pause here - back soon! Pendright (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Base organization:

• An advance echelon of SOS NATOUSA was organized in Italy and arrived at Dijon on 12 September to control both the Delta Base Section and CONAD.[75]
  • to "take or assume" control "of"

    Fine as it is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Marseille:

• He opposed the Navy's plan to rehabilitate both and Toulon, and recommended that efforts be concentrated on the former.
  • Something seems missing in the frst clause?

    Looks like somebody has already fixed this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

    Add a subject to the last clause or drop the comma after Toulon

    Added additional pronoun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Harbor clearance was undertaken by two groups from the US Navy, each consisting of about 10 officers and 100 other ranks, and two smaller groups from the British Royal Navy.
  • "and 100 other ranks" -> enlisted men in the US Navy donot hold ranks, they hold rates?

    Source says "enlisted men"; changed to that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another 18 arrived in October.
  • Needs a subject

    Not really, but added "barges". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• The project was set back when one of the four large tugs used to tow the barges between Naples and Marseille capsized and sank.[85]
  • set back -> setback

    "set back" is correct; "setback" is a noun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Port-de-Bouc:

• The capacity of the port was small compared to Marseille, with a pre-war capacity of 7,000 long tons (7,100 t) of cargo, but German demolitions were not as extensive.
  • pre-war ->prewar

    Deleted hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Toulon:

• A large swing bridge that had been collapsed had to be cut up to remove it from the channel and provide access to the berths in the inner basins.[96]
  • cut up -> cut-up

    "cut up" is correct; "cut-up" would be an adjective. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Tonnage unloaded through the ports southern France increased from 174,500 long tons (177,300 t) in August to 326,813 long tons (332,057 t) in September, 524,894 long tons (533,317 t) in October, and 547,602 long tons (556,389 t) in November.[97]
  • Insert the word "of" between ports & southern Franc

    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Railways:

• "railway" is British English and "railroad" is American English, although they mean the same thing.
  • Why British English for this section?

    The US Army always uses "railway". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Inland waterways:

• Plans were made to remove the obstructions by 8 November,[107] but plans to use the Rhône were abandoned owing to a shortage of suitable tugs for use on its swift-flowing and relatively shallow waters.[113]
  • waters -> There is no plural form for water in Americn English

    Not according to the sources or the wiktionary. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Subsistence:

• The 178th Bakery Company established itself in Épinal on 2 October, and the 108th joined it there between 19 and 23 October, while the 7553rd (Italian) Bakery Company moved in to Vesoul.
  • in to -> into

    "in to" is correct here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Medical services:

• The 52nd 56th and 58th Medical Battalions landed on 15 August to supplement the organic medical units of the divisions.[132]
  • Insert a comma after 52nd

    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Finished - Pendright (talk) 03:26, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Supporting - Pendright (talk) 11:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2021 [60].

---

UEFA Euro 2016 Final

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Well UEFA Euro 2016 was a bit of a whimper, and yet we got to the final, where Portugal had somehow "appeared" despite drawing all three of their group matches and qualifying "through the back door" for the knockout stage. It was a bit of a CR7 exhibition up to that point, but the glorious one was forced off with an injury, early in the final against a resurgent France team who had frankly dominated their route to the final. Goalless at the end of regular time in the final, Eder popped up to score the winner to give Portugal their first major trophy and to annoy the French who just went one better two years later by winning the 2018 FIFA World Cup. It's a decent article, I think (of course), and as ever, I will work to address all constructive criticism. Thanks in advance for your comments and any time you might spend with the nomination, it's always appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Image review looks good! (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Amakuru

Background

• "along with the host name" - probably mention and link to France national football team at this point. In fact, the body of the article currently lacks links to the France and Portugal team article altogether.
• "along with the host team, qualified for the finals, along with" - repetition of "along with"
• "playing one another" - each other
• "four best third-placed sides"- slightly vague; what do you mean by "best"?
• "on home soil" - journalese
• "via golden goal" - "via a golden goal"?
• "24 times ... won eighteen" - comparable amounts, but I'll leave it to you to decide if they're far enough apart

  Done these all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Route to the final

• "equalised after Birkir Bjarnason scored" - "when" would seem better. I don't think they scored and then equalised afterwards.
• "Parc des Princes in Paris" - we already know it's in Paris
• Link penalty area
• "The first half ended goalless, but late in the second half, Portugal were awarded a penalty kick when Cristiano Ronaldo, who became his country's most-capped player in that game, was fouled in the Austrian penalty area by defender Martin Hinteregger; however, Ronaldo missed the penalty, striking the foot of the goalpost" - long sentence alert
• "He also saw a header disallowed" - journalese
• "As the third-placed team from Group F" - not sure this is necessary, it is recapping already known info

These done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

More to come.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link "header" on first use
• Maybe clarify that the game against Croatia was a round of 16 or whatever
• "the second-fastest goal ever scored in the history of the tournament" - perhaps say "at the time" or similar, as it has now been demoted down to fourth-fastest. Also the word "ever" can probably be dropped.
• "more than 10 hours of football" - is this national team only, or including club?
• "the semi-finals ... The semi-finals" - I guess it's separate paragraphs, but still feels a little repetitive
• "and saw them" - which saw them?
• "who they played" - whom they played
• "Six minutes into stoppage time" - need a link probably
• "In their final match" - final group match
• "appeared to foul Switzerland's Blerim Džemaili" -
• Could note that Germany were World Cup holders at the time

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Pre-match

• "This was the first time a match ball was not used exclusively for the final, and the first time multiple balls were used throughout the tournament (excluding the final)" - I think I see what this is saying, but the wording is slightly confusing. Particularly as it's not actually the first time multiple balls were used, only that the changeover from one ball to another occurred at a different point.
• "official to officiate" - funny-sounding
• "the aforementioned Champions League final" - slightly eggy link here
• "has officiated the" - don't need "has"
• "Domestically, he also officiated the 2012 Football League Cup Final and the 2013 FA Community Shield" - this might be a bit too much detail now.
• "He is the first English European Championship final referee" - was

These done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Summary

• Maybe mention the weather and humidity in the prose, as per the infobox
• I just watched some footage of the match and there was a shot by Sissoko inside the penalty area in the 33rd minute that was saved by the goalkeeper. Maybe see if that's covered anywhere.
• "The match ended 0–0" - not really ended, as it continued into extra time!
• "With four minutes remaining Nani's" - should be a comma after remaining

Addressed all these. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Post-match

• "tenth nation to win the European Championship" - maybe tenth different nation?
• "to win the Euro" - odd wording
• "Had France won the final, it also would have been a Bayern player to have this new record, Kingsley Coman (20 years, 27 days)" - not really sure we need this hypothetical
• "described Eder as "The ugly duckling scored! Now he's the beautiful swan!"" - doesn't quite scan. "The ugly duckling scored" isn't a description of someone...
• "his team was "as simple as doves"" - it feels like "his team were" might fit better, to match the plural doves
• "noting ... He noted that" - repetition of noting
• Maybe say whether Portugal managed to defend their trophy at Euro 2020?

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "In the knockout rounds, France defeated the Republic of Ireland, Iceland and Germany in the semi-final" - ambiguous wording, the "in the semi-final" could refer to all three teams.
• "There was a brief delay to the match early in the second half while a pitch invader was removed by security" - I wasn't totally sure that this detail was necessary in the body of the article, but it certainly isn't needed here.
• "he received the ball and held off Laurent Koscielny before running infield and striking the ball" - repetition of "the ball"

Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That's about it. Good work as ever. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru I think I've (finally) addressed your comments, cheers as ever. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy! Support.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

• "The sixteen-team tournament consisted of a group stage, from which eight teams qualified for the knockout phase" - see my comment re: this wording at the FAC for the 2012 final
• "The remaining four places were determined via two-legged play-offs of the other eight third-placed teams" => "The remaining four places were determined via two-legged play-offs involving the other eight third-placed teams"
• "the Polish striker's first goal in more than 10 hours of football" - specifically international football, presumably?
• "saw them reach their first UEFA European Championship final since 2004" - don't need you need to restate this here (it was already mentioned earlier)
• "France's next opposition were Albania" - opposition is a singular noun but the verb is plural
• "who they played five days later" => "whom they played five days later"
• "In addition, Clattenburg, FIFA listed since 2007 and a UEFA Elite referee, has officiated the 2012 Olympics gold medal match and the 2014 UEFA Super Cup" => "In addition, Clattenburg, FIFA listed since 2007 and a UEFA Elite referee, officiated the 2012 Olympics gold medal match and the 2014 UEFA Super Cup"
• "He is the first English European Championship final referee since Arthur Ellis in 1960 and Arthur Holland in 1964" - firstly, it should be "was" not "is", and secondly it seems odd to say he was "the first since X" and then list list two previous occasions that he was the first since.......
• "Portugal manager, Santos, praised" - not sure those commas are needed
• "France, led once again by Deschamps, won tournament" => "France, led once again by Deschamps, won the tournament"
• That's what I got on this one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude thanks for your comments here (and at the 2012 FAC!), I hopefully have addressed these ones to your satisfaction, let me know if there's anything more I need to do? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas Liber

Placeholder...looking soon....

Portugal became the tenth different nation to win the European Championship - is "different" necessary here?

Another reviewer said as such. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I made some minor tweaks - above is by no means a deal-breaker. Looks good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Cas, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:10, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review from Amakuru - Pass

• Is RSSSF a publisher or a publication? I've seen it unitalicised in other articles, but at least it's consistent here...

  It's a website hence the consistent use of website=RSSSF throughout all these articles. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Refs 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 24, 26, 28, 32, 34 - do these really not have dates? They seem to be live updates, so I'd guess the date is just the date of the match (and the updates in the "commentary" tab do have timestamps on them)

  No, I don't think they do. There's nothing to suggest they haven't been edited post-match either. Unless I see an explicit publication date (e.g. per BBC Sport articles), I don't synthesise one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 26 - missing "Albania" in the title

  Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 37 - agency is Thomson Reuters

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 38 - author Samuel Stevens not credited

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Refs 35, 36, 39 - SHOUTING

  Quietened down. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 48 - Agency PA Sport

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 53 - dead link

  But it's already archived, so that's not an issue. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 54 - ditto

  Ditto. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 55 - missing date

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 59 - it looks like you have a stray "v" at the end of the URL, which is breaking the link

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, AFP is an agency on the above.

  Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 63 - the title says "Archived copy".

  Rogue copy/paste scenario, now fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I can see on formatting etc. I'll be back with a "comprehensiveness" check and spot checks later on hopefully!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru done, cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: re the dead links, I think the order should be swapped around so that the archived link is the first one that readers see in the cite, not the second. You can do that by flipping the parameter from url-status=live to url-status=dead. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

You can blame IABot for that, I run it regularly on all these articles and it should be picking that stuff up. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Done now (manually). The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks and breadth of sourcing

• 1 - where does it verify "suffered their first defeat at a major tournament hosted in the country since the 1960 European Nations' Cup third-place playoff against Czechoslovakia"? Also, it looks like its list of finals doesn't differentiate between those that went to extra time and those that didn't, so "fifth European Championship final to end in a draw after 90 minutes of play" also seems to need another ref.

  Added another ref and another factoid while I was there. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• 2 - "six players, three from each team in the final, were named in the UEFA team of the tournament" - my reading is that the breakdown was 4 Portuguese and 2 French.

  Great spot. Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• 10 & 11 - the two sources give different figures for the possession (72% vs 66%) and also shots (26 vs 27) but not too much we can do about that I guess.

  Indeed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not sourcing related, but I've just realised that the "Summary" box at the bottom of the "Route to the final" section uses nested tables, which is frowned upon by WP:DTT for accessibility reasons. I think we've got around this in other articles by chopping the group tables and just listing results a simple table to the right of each country's prose.

  I've done that now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Other than that, I spot-checked about 10–15 other refs, and found them all accurate.
• The breadth of sourcing looks good too, covering reactions from the international press as well in addition to the UK sourcing used for much of the prose. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru thanks, especially for that bombshell on the table (which to be honest I only preserved out of respect to some of the other contributors to the article). All should be done. Let me know if you have any other thoughts. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Nice one, looks good. Passing on sourcing.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Cheers, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• Could potentially link hat-trick and Eiffel Tower in the pre-match section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Raphael Guerreiro is repeat linked in the extra time section.

  I'm only seeing him linked in the lead and once here, what am I missing? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  Ah, that's my fault, I confused myself with the links there I think. Kosack (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Blaise Matuidi is mentioned for the first time in the same sentence so needs his full name and link.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There's little I can add at this point, the article is very well written and has been thoroughly reviewed. A few minor link points above but I'll be supporting either way. Kosack (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Kosack many thanks, one query for you above, and please do let me know if there's anything else I can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: four supports, image review passed and source review passed. Can I nominate another candidate? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, a bit earlier than I generally like to consider closure (and, ipso facto, agree to a new nom) but it's clearly pretty much there so sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: anything else required? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by JennyOz

Sorry TRM, just when you thought...

• teams qualified for the the knockout phase - remove a "the"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• UEFA's competition for - add 4 yearly (or quadrennial)?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• ... Ronaldo was taken off the pitch on a stretcher, injured, and was replaced - with that first comma it can read as if he was stretchered then injured. Perhaps ... Ronaldo was injured and taken off the pitch on a stretcher and was replaced... (or remove the comma/s)

  Removed commas. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• struck the underside of the France crossbar. A minute later, Portugal took the lead through Eder: he struck - 2 x "struck" too close? maybe "hit" for first one?

  Reworked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• became the tenth different nation to win - is different necessary?

  Just to clarify that some nations had won more than once. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• twelve years after losing their first final at home in - needs comma after final

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• after losing their first final at home in the 2004 tournament. France became the second host team to lose the final, after Portugal in 2004, - repetitive? lose "in 2014"?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• and via golden goal against Italy - "a" golden goal?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• France had won eighteen of those meetings, Portugal five, and one draw. - "with" one draw

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• and more than shots throughout the match - ? more shots than Iceland? (or remove "than")

  Removed "than", remnant from previous. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the round of 16, Portugal faced Group D winners - wlink UEFA Euro 2016 Group D

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• the Croatian goalkeeper, but Ricardo - just Croatia?

  Yes, I'm normally disciplined about this, so thanks for that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Portugal returned to the Parc Olympique Lyonnais in Décines-Charpieu on 6 July - location already given

  Removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• five days later at the Stade Vélodrome in Marseille - location already given

  Removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• at the Stade Vélodrome in Marseille on 7 July. - location already given

  Removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• France faced the third-placed team from Group E, the Republic of Ireland - wlink UEFA Euro 2016 Group E

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• his header on the rebound was saved by Lloris. - Lloris not named and linked since lede

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the hours leading up the final, - insert "to"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• In addition, police carried out - remove "in addition"

  Okay. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Before the start of the match, at 8:45 p.m., the closing ceremony was held. - ambiguous (reads as if match was 8:45), move to end ie ...the closing ceremony was held at 8:45 p.m.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Portugal changed to a 4–1–4–1 formation with Nani - no wlink for this formation?

  No. Unlinked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Adrien Silva - why does he get both names?

  That's what the sources give. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Rui Patrício - why both?

  That's what the sources give. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• stoppage time - wlink

  Linked. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• William Carvalho was booked a minute later - drop William

  Removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Three minutes into the second half, Koscielny was shown - name and wlink

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• although replays appeared to show - insert "TV"

  Add "television". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• struck the underside of the France crossbar - but didn't score, was cleared, bounced off?

  It's implied that it didn't score. The source says "clattered off" and nothing more. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Portugal were knocked out in the first knockout round - 2 x knock, maybe "were eliminated" in the first...

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• finishing the group stage in second place behind Spain - wlink should be Group B

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

That's it, JennyOz (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

JennyOz no worries, and thanks for your comments, to which I've responded in toto above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Fab! Thanks, happy to support, JennyOz (talk) 11:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2021 [61].

---

London and North Western Railway War Memorial

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

After a hiatus of a few months while the day job was insane, I'd like to bring this one back here to get it its star and make it my 30th FA. The day job is still manic so responses might sometimes take a few days but I should be in a position to see this one through. I believe I've addressed everything that needed addressing from the previous FAC but I'm open to all feedback. The article covers a monument that has stood in the same spot for 100 years next month while everything around it has been demolished and rebuilt. I think my favourite thing about this article is the variety and quality of the images available to illustrate it. Thank you for your time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

I supported this article at A-class and at its previous FAC in April, and support its promotion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

All images have appropriate licences:

• File:Euston cenotaph.JPG, File:LNWR War Memorial, Euston - northwest statue 01.jpg, File:LNWR War Memorial, Euston - northeast statue 01.jpg, File:LNWR War Memorial, Euston - southeast statue 01.jpg, File:LNWR War Memorial, Euston - southwest statue 01.jpg are the work of Wikipedian photographers
• File:Euston old Station entrance no arch geograph-2991077-by-Ben-Brooksbank (cropped).jpg
• File:Euston old Station entrance no arch geograph-2991077-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg and File:Bus and London and North Western Railway War Memorial at Euston station (Geograph-6678664-by-Alan-Murray-Rust).jpg Geograph UK under CC licence.
• File:Drawing of London and North Western Railway War Memorial in The Builder.jpg PD in UK because author died before 1950. PD in US because published in 1920.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review -pass

• Sources are all high quality.
• Spot checks performed on footnotes 6, 10, 11, 15 (both), 19 and 20.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Does Darroch not come with an OCLC? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: managed to find it but it wasn't easy! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

If it were easy, it wouldn't need you. ;-) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment Support from Tim riley

I have no doubt I'll be supporting the elevation of this article, but a few quibbles first:

• In an article written in the Queen's English it seems a shame to use an American/tabloidese false title such as "Art historian Gabriel Koureas". A definite article would lift the prose into stylish BrE.
  • I dislike definite articles in cases like this. He's not the art historian (I'm reasonably sure there's more than one art historian!), but in this case the sentence is easily restructured.
• Ref 15 seems to cover a lot, but if it supports "The unveiling ceremony was possibly the largest for a railway company war memorial", fine.
• I have a Fowlerian distaste for "prior to" rather than a plain English "before", but to each his own.
• "preferring instead to focus on the company's war record and the actions of railwaymen who had received decorations in order to smooth industrial relations" – one sees what you mean, of course, but they didn't actually receive decorations in order to smooth industrial relations. It might be clearer to rejig on the lines of "Lawrence wrote back that such explanation was "neither necessary nor desirable". To smooth industrial relations he preferred to focus on the company's war record and the actions of railwaymen who had received decorations".
  • Fair point. Done.
• "Maintenance of the memorial is the responsibility of Network Rail" – WP:DATED? Might be better to add "at 2021" or some such, given the perpetually shifting reassignment of responsibility for every bit of the railways since privatisation.
  • Another good point, especially as NR may soon disappear.
• ISBNs – the MoS bids us use the hyphenated ISBNS (not sure why).
  • As Hawkeye says, they're not required. I have no strong feelings, but if none of them have hyphens, the hyphens can't be inconsistent!

I enjoyed this article – a pleasure to read for one who has used Euston a lot over the past 50 years. Tim riley talk 19:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Tim, I'm glad you found it interesting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The hyphenated ISBN is advocated in WP:ISBN but WP:ISBN is not actually part of the MOS. It's painful to reformat ISBNs by hand, so I ordered the MilHistBot to do it; but Harry can feel free to revert. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Fine! After a final read-through I am now happy to add my support for the elevation of this article to FA. It is clear, balanced, evidently comprehensive, well and widely sourced, excellently illustrated and a pleasure to read. Meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page. – Tim riley talk 17:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Zawed

I was another editor that supported the promotion of this article to A-class for the MilHist project. Taking a look at it again with fresh eyes, I still think it is great shape and worthy of promotion. Just a few things I picked up, the first two being in the lead:

• There is something a little jarring for me in this phrase: "a First World War memorial outside Euston railway station". I think putting "located" ahead of outside would improve the flow
  • That works fine.
• "over a third of the company's workforce; over 3,000 were killed." the consecutive use of "over" is also jarring. As an alternative, perhaps "nearly 4,000 were killed? Or would that be a little too inaccurate?
  • Another alternative would be to replace one "over" with "more than". Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I've reworded the whole sentence; we can stand to lose some "overs".
• "He was adamant that the memorial was to honour the dead and not in any way a victory monument." should there be a "be" or "be considered" ahead of " a victory monument"?
  • I put a "was" in front of "not in any way"; does that improve readability?

An excellent article and I anticipate supporting its promotion to FA. Zawed (talk) 08:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Zawed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

All good, adding my support. Zawed (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

• "cost around £12,500..." – Suggesting to use Template:Inflation
  • I'm ambivalent about these because I'm not sure the result they produce is meaningful.
    • Up-to you then, though I think that it might be helpful.
• "R. L. Boulton & Sons" – It currently links to a page, which is redirected to Richard Lockwood Boulton. Can we directly link it to Richard Lockwood Boulton
  • This Would be in contravention of WP:NOTBROKEN, which explicitly discourages bypassing redirects and lists several reasons against doing so.
• "contains the further inscription" – should we add a colon symbol to the end of this para?
  • I generally dislike colons in prose, but this one is probably necessary. Done.
• "Second World War" – can be linked
  • That feels like overlinking. MOS:OVERLINK discourages links to "Everyday words understood by most readers in context" and I think most English speakers have at least a basic understanding of what WWII was.
    • Although I don't think that it might be over-linking, but its up-to you.
• "without distraction"." – Reference are not in order. 4 should be before 11.
  • Fixed.
• "(home of another major works)" – Why can't we just say "(home of Wolverton railway works)"?
  • I'd prefer to avoid repeating the place name so close to its first mention.

Overall, this is an excellent article, and I'll support soon after these relatively minor comments suggestions are addressed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Thank you very much for your review. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell – Most of your replies were satisfactory, and I support promotion of this article to featured article status. Would appreciate if you could take a look at this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 October 2021 [62].

---

2002 World Snooker Championship

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the last World Snooker Championship final of the most successful player at the event Stephen Hendry. Hendry, who won the event seven times in the 1990s met Peter Ebdon and went to a deciding frame! Ebdon won the event to win his only world championship. Hendry made 16 century breaks during the event, a record amount for a single player at a single event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

image review

• Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look, I have added punctuation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by Amakuru

Overview

• Maybe mention that the world championship is an annual event
• Also mention that it's organised by the WPBSA, and it's a bit unclear what "official" means here
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "25th consecutive time" - maybe "consecutive year" instead?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "amateur qualifying tournament" - what is meant by amateur in this context? The opening sentence says it's a "professional" tournament, so seems slightly contradictory.
  • Amateur means they have amateur status, which generally means they don't compete on the World Snooker Tour. Only one person has ever actually come through the qualification rounds to play in the main competition (James Cahill in 2019). It's similar to the The Open Championship, which is a professional event, but has some of the top amateurs in qualification/invitational spots. It's generally a very small amount of amateur players who actually make the real qualification rounds (eight players in this year, it's usually 16), and then they have to go through many rounds of actual qualification. The sport does have a history of professional events also having players who don't have that status, either by wildcard rounds, or because someone pulled out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "at Manhattan Club, Harrogate and" - need a comma after Harrogate; also just checking if it should be the Manhattan Club?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "played as best-of-19-frames. The number of frames needed to win a match increased to 13 in the second round and quarter-finals, and 17 in the semi-finals" - slightly confusing mix of nomenclatures here; it might be obvious, but I'd suggest either switch them all to be be consistently "best of" or "first to", or clarify that best-of-19 also means first to 10 or whatever.
  • Sure, I have changed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Stage one" / "Stage two" - what are these? Previously we talked of a "qualification stage" and a "main draw", so perhaps they're the same things, but I couldn't be certain of that
  • Yeah, It's exactly that. I've made the change. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

First round

• Minor point, but we already said earlier that the rounds here were best-of-19; I guess it could be useful to reiterate, but worth thinking about
  • Yeah, I've been both ways on this one. The way I see it, is that as the amounts change, it's worth reiterating at the start of each section what the scores are going to be. We also get the chance then to comment how many sessions are being played, as it's not just 19 frames in a row. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "and lead 6–3 at the end of their first session" - I think this should be "led"?
• "and lead 6–3 at the end of their first session, and won the last frame with a break of 111 as he won 10–4" - too many ands in this sentence, and also the double "won" sounds slightly repetitive
  • I have fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Maximum break" was first mentioned in the "Prize fund" section above, so seems like it should be linked there rather than here
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "failing to pot the final pink ball" - slightly confused here, as the final ball should be a black. Also, during a maximum break there would only ever be one pink potted.
  • Technically, yes. Although it is more than possible to pot two pink balls and still finish with a maximum break. I have removed final though Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "in-a-row" - I don't think this needs hyphenating. There are a few of these throughout the article.
  • I'm certain someone told me the opposite the other day! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "This and the match between Hunter" - "This" sounds like it means the cue-snapping incident, so perhaps say "This match" or similar
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Second round

• "and won just one frame in the second session and was defeated 3–13" - double "and" again
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "In the eight frame, the final frame" - repetition of "frame"
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "This was particularly unexpected given White's reputation for good sportsmanship" - sounds like more of an opinion than an objective fact to be given in Wikipedia's voice. If someone has said this, maybe attribute it to them.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Hamilton had been defeated by Williams in the final of the China Open earlier in the season, said that the previous match" - doesn't quite scan. Either needs to be "Hamilton, who had...", or an "and" after "season".
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Quarter-finals

• This section feels quite short, with the match summaries looking briefer than other rounds, for example the O'Sullivan–Lee and Ebdon–Hamilton games. Maybe expand a bit.
  • Fair enough, I'll see what's out there. If I remember rightly, there's not much online, but I shall take a deep dive. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I've added a very exciting piece about O'Sullivan breaking the table, I'm yet to find anything interesting about the Ebdon match (and, some might say, all Ebdon matches ;)). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• "who had only conceded three frames in his previous two matches trailed" - comma after matches
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Matthew Stevens made the highest break of the championship" - don't need "Matthew"; also was this the highest to that point, or did it remain the highest?
  • It was the highest of the event. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-finals

• "O'Sullivan made comments due to a dispute from a previous event" - feels like this needs slightly more detail
  • I've expanded per source. I don't know when this actually happened though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "ended up winning 17–13" - sounds slightly informal; maybe "went on to win 17–13" or similar
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Final

• "Ebdon (seeded seventh) and Stephen Hendry (fifth) also competed in the 1996 final. Hendry had defeated Ebdon 18–12 to gain his sixth world title in 1996" - a bit long-winded and repetitious; maybe something like "Ebdon (seeded seventh) and Stephen Hendry (fifth) had also competed in the 1996 final, with Hendry defeating Ebdon 18–12 to gain his sixth world title".
  • That is better. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Sean Ingle - link
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Many commentators had been expecting Hendry to take his eighth world title" - this feels a bit redundant at this point; perhaps just combine the commentators' expectation with the point above about the eight million viewers anticipating the eighth world title.
  • Merged Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "His defeat effectively signalled the start of his decline as a major force in the game of snooker" - sounds a bit like an opinion; suggest either attributing it to someone, or rewording to be more of an objective observation
  • Yeah, I'd love to attribute this to someone, but the source doesn't specifically say this, so I've removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Qualifying

• "The final qualifying round was held at Newport on 16 and 17 March 2002" - the "Format" section earlier mentioned rounds at the Manhattan Club and the TIC, but did not mention anything about Newport. Needs a link somewhere too, not least because there is more than one Newport.
  • Yeah, it's the Newport in Wales. Added also to format. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the open World Championship" - what does "open" mean in this context? Also perhaps give a date of when the "open era" began if that's relevant
  • I think someone is making the suggestion that this event is open to both men and women, rather than the women's world championship. I have removed as irrelevant. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

• (paraphrasing a very eminent Wikipedian I know): If you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have an FAC of my own at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2014 FIFA World Cup Final/archive1  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• • just one outstanding piece about expanding the quarters, I'll take a look at your FAC in a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

    @Lee Vilenski: thanks, and let me know when you've had a chance to look at the quarter-final point. All looking good apart from that, cheers.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

    • Amakuru, I've added some additional info. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

      OK I guess that'll be fine now. Happy to support on prose, good work as ever!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

Three weeks in and only one general support. Unless this nomination picks up further interest over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• No problem. I'll see what I can do to draw up some attention. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from zmbro

Now I'm not knowledgeable on this subject whatsoever, but I'd thought I'd provide a few comments so it's not archived.

• Noticing quite a few sources aren't archived and some (such as ref 48) are missing publication dates. I'd make sure all are archived and have authors/dates/etc. if applicable
  • I'll go through them all at length in a bit. I have covered ref 48.
• Ref 42: the Guardian should be The Guardian
  • Done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Is there any more info on the Crucible Almanac? Not seeing an isbn, publisher, or location. It also might be better to do the sfn template here
  • It's only used four times, so it's not that bad. It's a self-published source, but well above the level at WP:SPS. It's written by Chris Downer who's a snooker historian. We only use it for match results and statistics. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

These are what I find so far. Hope I helped! – zmbro _(talk) 15:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from BennyOnTheLoose

(Note for transparency - I've contributed to this article in the past.)

• "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy." - Is is the lead, but not in the body of the article.
  • Added and cited Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Looks like there is one duplicate link (Newport).
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• I amended "issue" to "date" in Snooker Scene refs.
  • Thanks for that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Overview

• "The World Snooker Championship is a professional tournament and the official world championship of the game of snooker" - how about "The World Snooker Championship is the official world championship of the game of professional snooker"?
  • Changed per your wording Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• " organised by the WPBSA" - I'd say "organised by World Snooker" (and use the same wikilink). Source has "World Snooker Limited", referring to an entity that is mainly owned by Matchroom Sport with the WPBSA holding a 26% stake. WPBSA is the governing body, so might be fine to keep that in the infobox, possibly needing a source.
  • Changed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the sport was popular in the British Isles. However, in the modern era" - I believe this has passed inspection in other snooker FACs, but today it's making me ask "when was it popular in the British Isles, is it still?" In some articles I think this historical background is omitted, which is one option, with another being to tweak it.
  • I've removed "however", as that suggests it no longer is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "in Sheffield, England" appears twice in close proximity.
  • Removed the second one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "There were a total of 120" - I think could just be "There were 120" or "A total of 120"
  • Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Manhattan Club, Harrogate, the Telford International Centre and in Newport, Wales." The Newport venue was Newport Centre (Wales) according to Snooker Scene ("Final Qualifying Round Draw", March 2002, page 35)
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Century breaks

• "This was just the second time that the highest break of the tournament was 145, after Doug Mountjoy's in 1981." - I'm not sure that this is worth including.
  • Yeah, that is a weird thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:56, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I've picked up all of the above BennyOnTheLoose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "18–17 in the final" - consider something like "by 18 frames to 17 in the final"
  • I am not a fan of this much, I think everyone understands that they won 18 to 17, whatever the figures mean. We can go into details in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The highest of the tournament was made by Stevens, who made" - maybe add "break" after "highest" - substitute something else for one instance of made, e.g. "compiled"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "a record for any individual tournament" - specify whether for any player and whether still current.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Format

• "Mark Williams seeded 2" - should this be "Mark Williams seeded second"? (I think MOS likes us to avoid numebrrs like 2 appearing as numerals)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Prize fund

• The £1,615,770 excludes the qualifying and main competition maximum break prizes. So I think the lead is right that "£1,615,770 was awarded". But the total available prize fund was £1,615,770 + £147,000 + £5,000. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Added a mention that this figure doesn't include the bonus money. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

First Round

• "played as the best-of-19 frames matches, played over" - repetition of "played"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "had smashed the pack of reds open" - anything else from sources that could be added to mention that this is unusual in snooker?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "snapped his cue stick" - maybe "snapped his own cue stick" to be very clear that it wasn't his opponent's one?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "and the contest between Hunter and Hann" maybe add something like "which was being played at the same time" - assuming there was ony the one streaking incident.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Second round

• "session to spare" has a cuegloss entry.
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "second session match again" - presumably "the second session of his match against"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-finals

• "the Daily Telegraph" - either capital T, or take "the" out of the wikilink.
  • Capital "T" goes against our MOS. The way it is written is correct I believe per WP:THE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Final

• Could wikilink "The Guardian"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• "This was the first time a player had won both their semi-final and final match on a deciding frame" - not supported by source cited.
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• covered the above BennyOnTheLoose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, don't think I have much more. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• should be "the Guardian" to be consistent with "the Daily Telegraph".
• Some refs have gone out of order in the section about the final ([55][40][56])
• Ref 36 is missing the author.
• Should the one "note" be in a separate Notes section rather than under references?
• Ref. 11 is incomplete ("Snooker: World championship finds new sponsors". 19 January 2006.)
  • I have covered the remaining pieces BennyOnTheLoose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Now happy to support follwing the responses to my comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Source Review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Lead says 26th consecutive year at Crucible, text says 25th - which is correct?
  • 26. I got confused between consecutive years and annivesary Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy. " - source?
  • Added per benny. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• In general, check for consistency between lead and text, and that everything in the lead is supported in the text
• Be consistent in how you format BBC refs
• What makes Global Snooker Centre a high-quality reliable source? global-snooker?
  • They are both the same, (although they were rebranded thus the different names). They were run by Global Cue Sports Ltd, which had an editorial roll; although I can't find much online about them. There isn't too much in there that isn't covered by other sources, so can remove if there's need. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Any info on specific editorial policies? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • nothing specific I could find. They were easy to replace, so I have done so. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN12: don't include website name in title. Ditto FN13, check throughout
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Don't need retrieval date if no URL is included, and don't put it in |via=
  • Removed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Check throughout - eg FN30. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:19, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Good catch, I did miss that one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN42 is missing author
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• (London) isn't part of the title of The Times - if it's to be included it should be a separate parameter, and if it is included here should be consistent (eg The Guardian doesn't include it)
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN98: Snooker Archive is the website name, don't need domain. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • All done Nikkimaria/ Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Seeing some inconsistencies around newspaper citations - compare for example FN11, FN54, and FN55. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologies - these should all now be cite news Nikkimaria. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
    • FN55 is italicized while FN11 is not - why? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Apologies. Now both ital'ed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

• "The championships were sponsored by cigarette manufacturer Embassy." (in two places) - this seems to be the only use of "championships" (plural). Suggest it be in the singular to match other uses
  • Indeed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "organised by the World Snooker" - is the correct usage really the World Snooker? It reads rather oddly to me......
  • Yeah, it did say "the WPBSA", per Benny, this was changed. It is indeed not "the World Snooker". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "accused White of making a push shot" - what's a "push shot"? Is there an appropriate link?
  • Added Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "This match and the contest between Hunter and Hann was" - subject is plural, so it should be "were"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• In the second round section, it's a bit of a mishmash as to whether you restate the forename of players who were mentioned in the previous round. Per MOS:SURNAME, I would suggest that all such players should just be referred to by their surname after the first mention (same applies to later sections)
  • I'm the worst for doing this. I think I got them all . Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "In the eight and final frame" => eighth, not eight
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Hamilton, who had been defeated by Williams in the final of the China Open earlier in the season, despite being ahead by three frames." - this is not a complete sentence
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Williams commented that despite being ranked number one in the world, his...." - needs a comma before "that" to start the clause that the later comma closes
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Cue stick is linked in the quarter-finals section but this is not the first mention - move the link to the first mention
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "O'Sullivan experienced the crucible curse" - need a capital on Crucible as it refers to the venue, not just to the general concept of a crucible
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Stevens, however moved within one frame of victory at 16–14" - needs a comma after however as well as before
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The final held between Peter Ebdon and Stephen Hendry was played as a best-of-35 frames match over four sessions on 5 and 6 May. Ebdon (seeded seventh) and Stephen Hendry (fifth) had also competed....." - reuse of forenames is especially inconsistent here.......
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Refs on the last sentence of the final section are not in correct numerical order
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "having also have done so in 1994" - wording goes a bit weird there.......
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Then with just four reds remaining on the table,[59] Hendry potted" - needs a comma before "with" to open the clause which the later comma closes
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The Guardian's Sean Ingle described the final as "one of the sporting highlights of the year."[56] He ultimately blamed his defeat...." - who did the blaming in question? If it was Ingle, then you need to change that bit to "He ultimately blamed Hendry's defeat" Or was it Hendry? In that case you'd need to change it to "Hendry ultimately blamed his defeat"
  • Moved to avoid confusion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "This was Hendry's last appearance in a World Championship final, and reached his last ranking final four years later" => "This was Hendry's last appearance in a World Championship final, and he reached his last ranking final four years later"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Bit surprised to read through the whole article and then find details of the qualifying rounds at the end. Surely these should come before the account of the tournament proper?
  • I do if we have a decent account. I can move it up if you'd like, but it's quite a short section covering who qualified. The qualifiers back then were much less prominant than they are now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Wikilink WIllie Thorne in the prose of the qualifying section, as you have done with the likes of Knowles and Fisher
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• On a similar note, players with articles are not wikilinked in the prose for the qualifying rounds
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "lost in the seventh round of amateur qulifying" - typo on "qualifiying"
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• Should the "Amateur qualifying" sub-heading be changed to "Amateur pre-qualifying" to match the usage in the prose......?
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• "saw John Parrott qualify for the Crucible stage for the 19the consecutive year" - typo on 19th
  • Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• That's what I got.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Think I've covered everything ChrisTheDude Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm still seeing some players in the prose of the qualifying section who could be linked but are not e.g. in the round 3-6 section, Steve Davis is linked but Ryan Day and Shaun Murphy are not......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Apologies. Murphy isn't linked because he was already mentioned in the prose and linked there. I missed Day, who is now linked Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I made a few minor changes in that section and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - hi! Is there anything more I need for this nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Lee, looks pretty much there, will probably check over in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2021 [63].

---

UEFA Euro 2012 Final

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC); The Rambling Man

So it's another major international tournament final for you guys to enjoy, this one from UEFA Euro 2012. The result was a thumping 4–0 victory for Spain over their opponents Italy, in what was Spain's third successive major trophy after they also won UEFA Euro 2008 and the 2010 FIFA World Cup, playing with their famous "tiki-taka" style. This is a co-nomination with The Rambling Man, and as ever we look forward to hearing your detailed feedback on this article.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review - pass

• Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Looking now.....

• Try and avoid one sentence paras

  Done that, I've expanded it rather than merge it, which I think is a bonus outcome. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is weird having the Spain-Italy match discussed twice - I'd trim it in the Italy section; they're not that far apart.

  True enough. I've just left the final score in the Italy section. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Spain emerged victorious, and headed to the UEFA European Championship final for the fourth time, since 1964, 1984 and 2008. - the years here are superfluouse as they've been mentioned in the background section..excetp 2008 isn't mentioned there..?

  Agreed, years gone, and the glaring oversight in the background section now addressed!! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose and comprehensiveness otherwise look fine. Late here, will have another lookover later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Casliber as ever, thanks for your comments, we look forward to more. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Spain's Iniesta was named as UEFA's man of the match. - mixed feelings, I think I'd drop the "Spain's" here as we've established a few lines before that he plays for Spain....

I read though it again - I can't find anything else to complain about (but I am not the most perceptive of prose analyzers) - the one quibble above is not a deal-breaker. Looks on-target on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Casliber thanks very much. There's also a 2016 FAC which could use your thoughts?! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Heh, good..takes my mind off current premier league season anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude

• "The sixteen-team tournament consisted of a group stage, from which eight teams qualified for the knockout phase." - wording is slightly off here - the first clause makes it sound as if the tourney consisted entirely of the group stage. Maybe try "The sixteen-team tournament began with a group stage, from which eight teams qualified for the knockout phase."

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The top teams in each group, along with the two host teams" => "top team in each group"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "There, they were divided into four groups of four" - it's a little unclear that "there" means "in the finals"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Need a comma after "defeating the Soviet Union 2–1 in the 1964 final" to close off the clause

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "were runners-up in 2000, losing 2–1 to France in the 2000 final" - could pipe out the second 2000, as if they were runners-up in 2000 then obviously it was the 2000 final that they lost

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Italy won the last meeting" => "Italy had won the most recent meeting"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Second Third mention of Ukraine in the background section is linked rather than the first

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Italy took the lead through striker Antonio Di Natale in the 61st minute, who had come on" - "Italy took the lead in the 61st minute through striker Antonio Di Natale, who had come on" reads more naturally to me

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Given that it's Spain's route to the final we are talking about, is it really relevant who had scored the winner for Portugal in their QF?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Casillas produced a tremendous diving save" - bit POV.......

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• The next three sentences after that one are all quite short and perfunctory, is there a way to merge them into more flowing prose?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "It took three minutes before Spain found an equaliser through Fàbregas" - seems a bit odd to mention the equaliser but not the goal it equalised?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "A foul from Croatia midfielder Ivan Rakitić on Balotelli, meant Italy" - no reason for that comma to be there

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Their third and final match against Republic of Ireland" => "Their third and final match against the Republic of Ireland"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "As the match headed its way into the 90 minutes" - this reads really weirdly

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "England players also rounded off chances, through England strikers...." - no need to re-state England

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Both sides, however, still failed to take the plaudits" - is this intended to mean "both sides failed to score"? Never seen "take the plaudits" used in that sense

  Yeah, right? Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Balotelli was the first penalty taker for Italy, as he struck the penalty kick" => "Balotelli was the first penalty taker for Italy, and he struck the penalty kick"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Montolivo became the second player for Italy to take the penalty kick" => "Montolivo was the second player to take a penalty kick for Italy"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He made an attempt to slot the ball, past into the same corner, but missed the penalty wide, outside the goal" - this sentence is really bizarre and I think there's at least one word missing. "Missed the penalty wide" isn't natural English at all

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Pirlo became Italy's third penalty taker, as well as Ramos" - eh? They were both Italy's third penalty taker?

  Revised. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Midfielder Ashley Young stepped up to take England's third penalty, but failed to convert his goal, and instead hit the crossbar" => "Midfielder Ashley Young stepped up to take England's third penalty, but hit the crossbar"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• You describe two consecutive players as "stepping up", might want to adjust that

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "It only took a few minutes, before Balotelli struck again" - no need for that comma

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "this time blasted into the top right corner" => "this time blasting into the top right corner"

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "were awarded a penalty during the late minutes" - "during the late minutes" isn't really a valid expression

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "as they progressed into the final, having won the competition last in 1968" - that last bit doesn't naturally fit in at this point IMO and it was already stated earlier anyway

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "was chosen by UEFA as the official referee of the final" - as opposed to the unofficial ref?

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He first became an international referee in 2003, and the same year in June, officiated a 2003 Intertoto Cup first round match between Žalgiris and Örgryte" - can't see how any of this is pertinent, especially the random bit about reffing such an incredibly minor match

  Removed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "He has also refereed nine other Champions League matches" - "He had also refereed nine other Champions League matches" (assuming nine was the number of UCL matches he had reffed prior to the match being discussed)

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• There were four assistant refs plus a fourth official? Is that right? What did they all do?

  Indeed, that's what the source says. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Barcelona's Piqué joined Ramos in the centre and Alba of Valencia – played on the left" - no reason for that dash

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Andrea Pirlo, also of Juventus, again played" - don't think you need to restate his forename as he has already been mentioned a couple of sentences earlier

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Cassano, who plays for Milan" - not any more he doesn't

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Spain advanced for the first time, Silva advancing" - suggest varying the verbs here

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Crossbar is linked early in the match report but had already been mentioned twice before without being linked

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "after mourning their decision" - "mourning" is an odd word to use in a football sense generally, and I'm especially unconvinced that Spain's manager "mourned" a decision which was in his team's favour

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "that Italy played their part in, "by meeting the Spaniards high up the pitch." - don't think that "in," is meant to be there

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the Confederations Cup, which was played in Brazil in 2013" => "the Confederations Cup, which was due to be played in Brazil in 2013"

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude I think I'm finally done? Let us know what you think. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Kosack

• "for David Silva to head into from close range", head in or into the goal?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "win three consecutive major tournaments – Euro 2008", first time Euro 2008 is mentioned so can be linked.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Spain and Italy can be linked at the start of the second paragraph of the background section as the first mention.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Italy link in the Spanish route to the final section could then be dropped.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Penalty kick and penalty area could both be linked in this section.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Italy held on their lead" > held on to?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "replaced by Federico Balzaretti", is there a reason his first name is used again here?

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "only four minute after coming on" > minutes.

  Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the post-match section, the first mention of Del Bosque uses different capitalisation for his name mid-sententnce as opposed to the other uses. I'm not sure which is correct, but obviously only one can be.

  Made consistent. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I've got, nice work. Kosack (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Kosack thanks for your comments, I think I got them all, let us know if there's anything more we can do. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Version reviewed

Formatting

• I assume ref 51 needs a retrieval date? Not sure
• (Optional) Recommend marking refs 6, 47 and 66's urls as dead
• Ref 19 and 23 are both 11v11 but one has AFS Enterprises and one doesn't
• Ref 31 should probably be formatted like [[Goal (website)|Goal]], right?
• Are we sure the ".com" is needed for ref 44? I assume it should linked to SB Nation like ref 30 (and probably including Vox Media?)
• Should probably link National Post and Chicago Tribune as well (refs 55 and 56)

  Done all of the above.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

• I am a bit concerned about the use of Euro Summits: The Story of the UEFA European Championship (only cited once in the article). My concern stems from doubts on considering the source "high quality"; Pitch Publishing does not seem to be a particularly notable publisher (does not have a Wikipedia page, for example), and its not immediately obvious that Jonathan Brien is a subject matter expert

  Hmm... it's worth mentioning that this book has been used quite a bit in some other recent successful FAs particularly UEFA Euro 1976 Final, where information from other sources is less readily available, and also UEFA Euro 2008 Final. It also looks to me from the publisher's blurb that the author is a bona fide journalist: "Jonathan O’Brien is a professional editor and writer who lives in Dublin in Ireland. His work has appeared in the Business Post (his employer), the Irish Independent, the Sunday Tribune and When Saturday Comes". I think if he has work published in those newspapers, which we'd consider reliable sources, then a book he's written would also be reliable?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  The bibliography for Euro Summits spans five pages and includes hundreds of high-quality publications and newspapers. Given what Amakuru has said about O'Brien as well, I think this stands up to scrutiny. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  Brien's qualifications makes me more confident about this publication's use here and since I was on the edge anyway, if the source reviewers for those past FACs didn't find it objectionable, then I have no issue here. Aza24 (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hmm The42.ie seems less high quality than the other references used. It seems like a minor news website that is not particularly well-known or regarded and none of the site editors have Wikipedia articles for example. Is there any way it could be substituted?

  I have substituted this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• No issues with the other refs. They are from reliable and high quality news sources (BBC, Guardian, Telegraph) or statistical information from well-regarded publishers like UEFA and 11v11

Verifiability

• No issues Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Aza24: I think I've looked at all these points, with the one response to your concern re the O'Brien book. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  Looks good! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: - this FAC now has the usual three supports, a source review and image review. Please can The Rambling Man and I have permission to nominate another joint FAC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 09:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: pinging again. Amakuru, I don't think the ping above will work since you didn't sign. Aza24 (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: yes, apologies, hopefully this one will work. Re-requesting permission for another joint nom! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: does this ping still work? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Barely two weeks since it opened but yes we have the requisites for another nom -- okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello @FAC coordinators: , I think tomorrow marks the three-week (unwritten rule??) on promotion activation. Please do let either of me or Amakuru know if there's anything more required in advance of the assessment for this candidate's closure so we can make it right as soon as possible. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: anything else required? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Not at this stage, though I haven't walked through it yet. You got your permission for another nom above, yep? I expect to go through the list this weekend with a view to closing several noms, including the other UEFA one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and that nom already has four supports and passed image/source reviews. Things just a bit glacial here, that's all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@FAC coordinators: another five days and promotions taking place of "younger" FACs than this? Any ideas what's going on? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I expect that any younger FAC that was promoted had had more eyes on it than this. Three comprehensive supports is the minimum for promotion so I tend to leave those a bit longer in case anyone else shows up -- obviously not forever, and since nothing's changed in the past week I'm happy to close this one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Older nominations

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2021 [64].

---

Dracophyllum fiordense

Nominator(s): Dracophyllum

This article is about an obscure tree from New Zealand's South Island. It was first described in 1928 by the New Zealand botanist Walter Oliver. Genetic analysis more recently has revealed, though quite obviously morphologically speaking, that is is related to Dracophyllum traversii and Dracophyllum menziesii. Good work by botanists recently, a monograph from earlier this year for example, has made sourcing these Dracophyllum articles quite easy. The most important articles are paywalled however, so I can email them to you if you would like. I have chosen to nominate this article before my other GAs because it has no major issues or missing information – the only potential issue being the difficulty in avoiding too close paraphrasing in the description section... Thanks in advance for your comments. Dracophyllum 23:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 23:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber - Support

Looking now...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

It has tiny pink flowers.... - a size is more informative than "tiny"...ditto the fruit in the next sentence

Is mentioning they are 2 by 2 mm worth it for the lede? Dracophyllum > FAC 04:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

2 mm diameter round(ish) fruit"? (not a dealbreaker anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I've added this Dracophyllum 08:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It is rarely branched but when it is, they grow upright and have greyish-brown bark on older sections, whilst newer growth is a yellow-brown. = this sentence switches subject between first and second clauses..aand then changes topic for third. Needs splitting otherwise (weirdly sounds line the colours only occur on branched specimens. How about something like, "It has a single or (uncommonly) two upright trunks. Then colours in separate sentence.

Agreed, @Casliber: how does this sound:

"Though the trunk is usually unbranched, upright-growing branches may sometimes form – particularly on plants in Westland. The bark on older sections is a greyish-brown colour, while newer growth is a yellow-brown."

Dracophyllum > FAC 05:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do you have Approximate distribution AND range in taxobox, why not just "Approximate distribution/range"?

I've opted for just "range" Dracophyllum > FAC 03:50, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

link Fiordland, subgenus, endemic

Done Dracophyllum > FAC 04:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

some of the imperial range conversions stay the same number, which looks weird.

Which ones in particular? Also, should I be using fractions? Dracophyllum > FAC 05:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good from comprehensiveness and prose POV otherwise ergo Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Femke

Article is looking good. I'm leaning support pending source review and comments below

• Lede says 1.5-5m, but I think the body says are only 50 cm in alpine regions

I basically just followed what the monograph (Venter 2021) said in the description, I'm assuming that the 50 cm example is an extreme / outlier... Dracophyllum > FAC 02:30, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Its range occurs in -> Its range covers?

done Dracophyllum > FAC 04:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe wiktionary link tuft in lede

I chose tuft because I thought it would be easy for most people to understand – is this not the case? Dracophyllum > FAC 21:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

As a non-native speaker, I may not be representative, but I've never heard of the word. FemkeMilene (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• sheathed in 60–87 by 30–43 mm (2.4–3.4 by 1.2–1.7 in) leathery, grooved sheaths -> are situated in, or are covered by?

Having read some definitions of a leaf sheath: "the lower part of a leaf when surrounding the stem" and "a structure, typically at the base that fully or partially clasps the stem above the node, where the latter is attached," I'm not really sure if it's right to say the the leaf is "sheathed" by the sheaths, because in this case the leaf sheath is just the bottom of the leaf which wraps around the stem. I could clarify that somehow I think... Dracophyllum > FAC 04:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I've reworded it to, "and are attached to the stem by ...." Dracophyllum > FAC 07:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Flowering occurs from January to March, producing an inflorescence (flower spike) that is an axillary panicle, which is one that is many-branched and arises far below the leaves, between the stem the leaf. -> split sentence in two

Changed to: "Flowering occurs from January to March, producing an inflorescence (flower spike) that is an axillary panicle. This is one that is many-branched and arises far below the leaves, between the branch the ,leaf." Dracophyllum > FAC 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think the construction with the word one is awkward. Try... ... axillary pinacle: the inflorescense is many-branched and arises...

done Dracophyllum > FAC 19:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Alts seem to be missing for pictures.

done Dracophyllum > FAC 09:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• The third pararaph of the description section is very jargonny. I see you have explained some words, but still difficult to understand. Maybe reread and tweak further. I know at some point prose quality declines with too much explaining. Don't have specific recommendations.

I've explained a little more. A diagram would help but this close ups of flowers are hard to come by and all the botanical drawings are copyrighted... Dracophyllum 08:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

"caducous" keeps hanging me up there... Eewilson (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

possibly change "obtuse apices (tips)" to just "obtuse tips" and remove "apices" along with removing the wikilink for it; it's not used anywhere else in the article, so one less thing for the reader to have to learn Eewilson (talk) 08:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is, as apex. Sorry about that. ignore. -Eewilson

caducous is gone Dracophyllum 09:02, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• The corolla also has reflexed and oblong-shaped lobes, that are alone a similar size to the corolla tube at 1.5–2.0 by 1.3–1.5 mm (0.06–0.08 by 0.05–0.06 in) that are alone?

removed Dracophyllum > FAC 04:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Though he noted that because the 2010 study was based on plastid sequence data and did not attain some species with strong enough evidence, the subgenera are instead based on morphological characteristics -> Can "Though he noted that" may be omitted for an easier sentence structure

I wanted to imply that it wasn't my own original research, but if it doesn't sound like it was my inference without the noted bit, then it can go. Dracophyllum > FAC 09:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it's clear from context, but for clarity you can make the last bit of the sentence active case (he instead based the subgenera on ..). FemkeMilene (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Done Dracophyllum > FAC 04:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Can the first paragraph of distribution and habitat be split? Bit long. FemkeMilene (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Done Dracophyllum > FAC 03:52, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• :: @Femkemilene:, Eewilson has conducted a source review, do you now support this nomination? Cheers, Dracophyllum 23:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Side note: I have assumed that Venter is a New Zealander since they did their thesis in new zealand, but can't find anything about him online so will remove that line. Dracophyllum > FAC 08:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Nominator note

I'll be gone for the next few days for a short wikibreak, feel free to leave comments, though I wont be able to respond to them right away. Thanks, Dracophyllum > FAC 20:33, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Eewilson

In no particular order:

• Alts: I think the alts need some adjustment. See MOS:ALT. For example, the speciesbox image alt currently reads Dracophyllum fiordense in Fiordland on the Milford Track, on the flanks of Mount Balloon. The alt could instead read something like this: "Mountainside covered with green plants with D. fiordense in the center" and add a caption similar to one of these: "D. fiordense, Milford Track, Fiordland National Park" OR "Milford Track, Fiordland National Park" OR "D. fiordense in Fiordland National Park". As a bonus, you could edit the long description of the photo on Commons to include the entire description you have currently used as the alt.

I'm not sure what the <nowiki> will do in the alt for the photo in the Etymology section, but I would remove it, remove the Wiki markup from it (MOS:ALT says no code or markup in the alt), and change it to be similar to the one I described previously. You could also expand the caption a bit to include the location, if you wish.

I've reworked the alts a little, though don't wish to get hold up on them. Dracophyllum 09:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Looks good. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Sections: I think the Description section could have subsections for Leaves, Flowers, and Fruit to break up the long text. I also think Distribution and habitat ought to have Distribution and Habitat as subsections. You may need to do a bit of rearranging there.

I'll work on reworking the Distribution and Habitat section... Dracophyllum 06:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I've added some subsections – I feel like having them in the description section inflates it too much. Dracophyllum 03:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Punctuation: The sentence He hypothesised that this change in range was due either to: misidentification as D. traversii; simply not having being found earlier; or more recent movement of the species further north... should not have the colon. The subcolons are okay, but could also be replaced with commas (and perhaps should) since there are no commas embedded within each of the items.

ehh, the rules for this sort of thing are quite open – i'll change it if it impedes understanding. Dracophyllum 09:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, whatever. :) Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Redundant text: Oliver claimed it had been known by others for some years before he collected it in March 1927 on Wilmot saddle and Mount Barber.[5] The type specimen was collected on Wilmot saddle on the Wilmot pass.... First part of second sentence duplicates last part of first sentence.

I don't know why I thought this was a problem, but on second read, it's fine, so forget about this. Eewilson (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Subsection order: I'd put Phylogeny before Etymology, but not required I guess.

I like it in that order :) Dracophyllum 09:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Seeing it again, I kinda do, too. I may change a couple of the ones I've been working on. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Conservation section: In the Lead you have Its conservation status was assessed in 2017 as "Declining." This is not in the body, nor is there a Conservation section. I think it should be added to the body with detail as to why it's declining within a section for Conservation that comes after Distribution and habitat.

It's in the habitat section at the bottom, no information is given as to why it is declinig sry. Dracophyllum 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. If more information ever comes up, it may be worth a Conservation section. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Venter: There's reference to "Venter" by surname in the Description before the text about who he is and his full name, which doesn't occur until Phylogeny.

not sure when I removed it or if it was ever there but rn this issue is resolved. Dracophyllum 03:22, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Units of measurement: First instance of any measurement should be spelled out (metres, feet) (see MOS:UNITNAMES), so turn abbr=off there. Under description, mm (millimetres) and in (inches), cm (centimetres), etc.

done, can't seem to make in into inches Dracophyllum 09:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. I'll try, but if it doesn't work, no big deal on inches, I guess. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hypen needed: pyramid shaped should be "pyramid-shaped" as an adjective

done Dracophyllum 23:31, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Date format mismatch: Reference beginning with Norton, David A. (2018-10-02). needs to be changed to have dd mmmm yyyy format in the date = parameter.

Check. Eewilson (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hatnotes: I would add the following templates at the top below Short description since the article is already following these conventions: Use dmy dates, Use shortened footnotes, and Use New Zealand English

Added Dracophyllum > FAC 08:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. You should add those to all the Dracophyllum articles you are creating! :) Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• access-date: All sources with url = set should have access-date = set (per something I read recently).

k, done Dracophyllum 09:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• References order: References should be in alphabetical order by author surnames followed by publication date.

done Dracophyllum 09:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Footnotes section: Personally, I like "Citations" for the name of that section rather than Footnotes because Footnotes is too close to Notes and because they actually are citations.

Check. Eewilson (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ecology: There is no Ecology section. I think there is some ecology information in the article that could be rearranged/moved to one, and perhaps you can find more. See WP:PLANTS § Ecology.

@Eewilson: I've pulled together some scraps – it's a bit rough though. Dracophyllum 03:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll study it and get back with you. Eewilson (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

The bird picture is a nice touch! I'll read that more in depth soon. The second paragraph in the Description subsection that begins "Venter recorded in his 2009 thesis and 2021 revision of the genus that plants from the southern population..." can be a part of ecology because it is about the species' interaction with the environment. Very good information for Ecology. Eewilson (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, distribution/habitat and ecology sections often have a rough overlap (plant associations for example)... Dracophyllum 04:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Type specimen: Can you elaborate as to why there is a lectotype rather than a holotype? Is an image to the lectotype online? If so, perhaps a link to it in either a note or a citation, depending on how you use it if you find it.

—Eewilson (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I have included a picture of it as well as explained why it is a lectotype and not a holotype, I have reservations about linking stuff (to external websites) in the article, so I guess I could put it in an external links section... Dracophyllum 03:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What I have done is (perhaps) say where it is stored either in the prose or in an efn, then have a citation that has the external link. See Symphyotrichum lateriflorum for any of the specimen images, and Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Variety flagellare and Symphyotrichum lateriflorum#Variety tenuipes (or search for the word "stored") for sample prose and citations to go with them. —Eewilson (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll study what you've changed on this and get back with you. Eewilson (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Explanation is good. Anything else will come up in source review. Eewilson (talk) 04:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Punctuation: Its range covers two main groups, one in Fiordland National Park, and one in the Mount Cook and Westland National Parks. That first comma after two main groups should be a colon or an em-dash.

done Dracophyllum 04:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Date next to author citation: Botanical author citations do not have dates next to them like zoological ones do, so that should be removed from the Speciesbox.

Deleted Dracophyllum > FAC 07:33, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Speciesbox source citations: There should be a source citation for the Binomial and one for the Range map. You can put each of them on the end of the authority = and range_map_caption = parameters, respectively.

done Dracophyllum 06:27, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Grammar: simply not having being found earlier is really not correct — maybe "simply not being found earlier".

done, Dracophyllum 09:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• References subsections: I think you could replace === Websites ===, === Books ===, and === Journals === with ;Websites, ;Books, and ;Journals, respectively. No need in having them in the TOC.

done Dracophyllum 03:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Probably more later. —Eewilson (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Conversions: With respect to the conversions, so many of the measurements are so small that conversion to Imperial is meaningless. I would opt for eliminating all of your conversions and just using metric, which I'm pretty sure is acceptable given the location of the species and that this is a scientific article. You will need to place either a nbsp between each number and unit or wrap each in nowrap. I think this will also make the Description secion read much cleaner. Another option would be to use fractions, but you would end up with 0.55–0.60 millimetres (1⁄50–1⁄40 inch) or 0.55–0.60 millimetres (1⁄50–3⁄125 inch) or 0.55–0.60 millimetres (1⁄50–7⁄300 inch) for the smallest one, depending on the precision you choose. I don't think that's useful in this case.

—Eewilson (talk) 08:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the tiny ones. Dracophyllum 08:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• I can probably do the source review in a few days. —Eewilson (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I have access to all the paywalled articles and could send them to you if you would like. Dracophyllum 03:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum: That would be great. Do you have my email address from the GA you did for me? If not, message me through here and we can go from there. Eewilson (talk) 03:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay! It's looking good. I have the source review to do. Another read-through. I'm also working on a GA review and am in the source review for it, so I'll likely bounce back and forth between it and this. Good work! Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

More prose review, reference formatting, plant article contents

After a full read, I have made corrections in the article and have the following for you to address:

• Does there exist information on the phytochemistry and chromosome analysis of the species or genus? Description needs this if it does.
• Root structure is missing from the description.

None is given anywhere Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is there a fragrance?

None given Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Presume it is evergreen? Winter or drought deciduous? If so, add that, or add whatever applies.

Can't find anything about that Dracophyllum 03:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• What is "straight-triangular" and is there a clearer way to describe that?
• "It has an almost globe-shaped ovary, which is 0.9–1.0 by 1.3–1.5 mm (0.035–0.039 by 0.051–0.059 in), hairless, and has a round apex." What is "It"?

the flower/s Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. I changed it. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Because the 2010 study was based on plastid sequence data and did not attain some species with strong enough evidence, he instead based the subgenera on morphological characteristics." Did not "contain"? Did not "include"?

It's "attain" Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• mountain flax (Phormium cookianum), Which species is it? Also, Wikilink the species name rather than the common name per plants project instructions. I did that on all but this one because of the confusion.

It's a synonym, the one in the brackets is the more common one in nz Dracophyllum 03:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Check. I dealt with it. Eewilson (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Don't ital or bold punctuation such as parentheses, periods, commas, etc., unless it's a direct quote (I fixed). Put them outside of the formatting.

k Dracophyllum 03:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent with space endash space or emdash and no space when used in a sentence. I changed to space endash space because it was what was in the earliest part of the article.

k Dracophyllum 03:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ital the genus name in the journal article titles; sentence case in journal article names; title case in book names; I actually don't know about thesis names, but you have one of each so you may want to find out and see if they should be consistently one or the other
• All taxa above genus are not italicized. I fixed, but keep this in mind.

Many of the things I have listed during my review here should have been caught in or prior to GA review.

—Eewilson (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• The Convert template page lists options for the abbr parameter. The value off for that parameter will spell out both values. Leaving the parameter out takes the default, which is to spell out the first value but not the second. See Template:Convert#Parameter list for more info. Eewilson (talk) 05:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• Description
  • Paragraph 1: Sort out your two citations at the end of the paragraph within the prose so that the reader will know what came from which. If the same information came from both, use the secondary source (https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/dracophyllum-fiordense/).
  • Paragraph 2: Has no source citations.
  • Paragraph 3: Same issue as Paragraph 1.
• Distribution
  • Paragraph 2: The sentence "The northern population, in Westland, typically has many branched stems and much smaller fruit and shorter leaves." Should that be with one of Venter's sources or with Norton's?
• Ecology
  • Paragraph 1: There is a reference to Gray's 1977 thesis in the prose with no citation, then information from and a citation to Lentini et al. 2018, p. 158, then more information from Gray 1977 with a citation to it. Sort out the mismatch.

If you will clear those items up, then I'll be able to continue. Thanks! Eewilson (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

these issues have been fixed, thanks Dracophyllum 23:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Okay all done, Support! Great work. —Eewilson (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Oops @Dracophyllum: I forgot these two things that you didn't answer. I still Support, but can you let me know if you've looked into them?

• Does there exist information on the phytochemistry and chromosome analysis of the species or genus? Description needs this if it does.

Usually these are listed on NZPCN, a search on google scholar turns up nothing. So no, unfortunarely. Dracophyllum 06:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a bummer. Okay. Eewilson (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• What is "straight-triangular" and is there a clearer way to describe that?

source says the leaves are "linear–triangular" so basically its a rectangle than becomes shorter, kinda like a triangle. Dracophyllum 06:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I still don't get it, but don't worry about it. :) Eewilson (talk) 06:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

—Eewilson (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I've changed it to "and are shaped like a head of a lance; narrowing to their ends in a triangular form." which I hope makes a little more sense? It's hard to describe... Dracophyllum 08:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

It actually does! Thanks. Eewilson (talk) 08:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• @FAC coordinators: Are we good to go or are you looking for another review? Dracophyllum 00:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Always like to see more eyes on a nom if possible but it's been a month, so we'll go with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

    Given the topic I've chosen to nominate, I think I'm lucky to have gotten the amount of reviewing I did. Dracophyllum 06:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2021 [65].

---

New York Stock Exchange Building

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the home of the New York Stock Exchange, the world's largest stock exchange. It was built in the 1900s as a replacement for an older building, and then it was expanded several times in the 20th century. Its main facade, a colonnade supporting a giant pediment, is actually the NYSE icon, and the exchange building has become a famous tourist destination. Funnily the NYSE initially opposed official NYC landmark protection for the building for close to two decades. Even more funnily, the building did not have a standalone page until this year, despite being pictured in a myriad of literature about Wall Street, which isn't even where the main address of this building is located.

This page was promoted as a Good Article earlier this year and was recently copyedited through the GOCE, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. (Gog the Mild has given me permission to nominate this page while another nomination is ongoing.) Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Nitpicking time from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)

Hello! Thanks for reviewing my article, and I would try my best to pick up any mistakes! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There are some numbers that you shouldn't wikilink, such as in ...the city's first subway line (now the 4 and 5 trains), under Broadway. My bad, those are subway line num

Yep. We don't name our subway routes, we give them letters and numbers...which can sometimes be confusing to tourists, speaking from personal experience. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

These words should not be formatted as SMALLCAPS, such as containing the words stock exchange above the doors.

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The sources and see also section should be incoperated in reference section. What I mean here is to put the links on these section directly to the article.

The reason for this is because of WP:CITEVAR. But actually, I realized the references need to be standardized, so I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

The image's description should be more detailed, as well as right-justified to avoid sandwiching.

Done, for the most part (I'm still thinking about what to do with the colonnade image). Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Some sentences should be merged with the paragraph, or expanded. One example is New York Stock Exchange Building#Interior.

Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

There are many sentences that use passive voice, and the article would sound more fluid if switched to active. One example would be What became the NYSE was founded in 1792, when brokers signed the Buttonwood Agreement, forming an organization for securities trading. Previously, securities exchange had been intermediated by auctioneers.

I reduced the passive voice where I could, but in some cases it is very hard to remove without making the sentence flow awkwardly. Thanks for the feedback CactiStaccingCrane. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Positive comments

The article's grammar is very solid!

References are solid in first glance. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Instead of "see caption", use "refer to caption" in alt
  • Hi, I'm not the nominator but was just stopping by and reading through FAC.. this is minor so I've fixed this eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Yeah... it has just occurred to me that blind people can't see captions. Thanks eviolite. Epicgenius (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
• When and where was File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_LC-USZ62-124933.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It appears to be from 1908 in the US, see LOC listing. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • LOC uses "created/published" for their dates, so it's not always clear whether that means it was created then or published then - that's why we often need to track down an actual publication. (They state their image is from a film copy negative). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

      @Nikkimaria If you're asking this to confirm US copyright expiration, the rule is that it must have been published or registered with the United States Copyright Office before 1926, and this was registered in 1908 (bottom right). The reference number in the description matches the one in the registration. I have updated the description on Commons to note this. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

      @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the image review. Vahurzpu, thanks for your addition of the link showing the US copyright expiration. Since you've kindly resolved this issue, I think all (well, both) of the points raised in the image review have been resolved. Epicgenius (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

      • Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from HJ Mitchell

I've read through this thoroughly and the writing is excellent and it's undoubtedly comprehensive. If I had to criticise something, I would say that the history section could possibly be shortened by moving some of the material not directly pertinent to the building to the NYSE article, but I also realise that the history of the building is difficult to separate from the history of its occupier. Also, my only query is why the NYSE so vehemently opposed landmark status; the reason doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In general landowners oppose landmarking because it reduces their flexibility and adds another layer of review/bureaucracy to changes they want to make. I'm not sure sources exist that directly talk about why any individual owners oppose their landmarking, but probably the best place for Epicgenius to look is the LPC hearing notes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

David is correct about this. For example, in 1976, when a property owner wanted landmark status, the NYT mentioned that landlords opposing landmark status was "frequent". In general, city landmark status means that the city has very strict oversight over the landmark portions of the building, and they cannot do so much as replace a window (well, a window design) without getting it through the LPC. From what I looked at so far, the NYSE Building is pretty much the same, but I could look at the LPC hearing notes.

As for material more relevant to the NYSE itself, I've tried to keep the scope as narrow as possible. There are some places where the added context would be beneficial, which is why I added such text. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Review Support from David Fuchs

Forthcoming this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi David, is this still on its way? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey Gog the Mild, yes, still in progress. Hoping to get it done this evening but it might take until the next day. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I was just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Overall, I think the article's in solid shape. Initial comments as follows:

• Prose and general:
  • I performed a light line edit throughout, mostly just tweaking some agreements and trying to elide some transitions. Please check and make sure I didn't alter any meanings or disjoint any sources.
  • Eleven elevators were installed at 11 Wall Street; nine ran only to the 17th floor while the other two served the top six floors.—if this isn't the case now I think you can just simplify this.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • In general, I think there's a bit too many figures and numbers given to the point where it can be a bit overwhelming. Stuff like the precise measurements of the steel deposit box that isn't there any more don't seem important enough to mention (at least the weight is a different measure and conveys a bit more of how hefty it is then its length and width.)
  • Likewise, sometimes I think the article dwells a bit too much on the minute architectural stuff for a general-purpose article.
  • Likewise, I'm left wondering why it's so important we know about the size of the caissons and that their constructor was John F. O'Rourke.
    • To all three of these points, I have simplified some of the measurements. The reason the measurements were included was because this article is mainly supposed to refer to the building's design, which are details that would've been pretty inappropriate for the main NYSE article. I've simplified some details a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I think it reads much more cleanly now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:15, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• Media:
  • Images seem appropriately noted and licensed.
• References:
  • Don't have any issues with the sources used.
  • You've got some refs out of order for statements (e.g. [52][50] and such.)
  • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17, 23, 31, 39, 47, 51, 54, 71, 75, 86, 89, 92, 110, 130, 135, 151, 174, 176, 182, 189, 190, and 198.
    • Don't see mention of the post-9/11 closure of stairs in Ref 5 on the quoted pages.
    • Ref 6 supports the proposal to close the Broad Street subway stairs and slab them over, but it doesn't support that they actually were.
      • I removed ref 5 and have used ref 6, which does say "One of the stairs has been closed since 2002 and the other since 2012 at the recommendation of the NYPD as part of the security perimeter of the Stock Exchange." This article no longer mentions slabbing the staircases over - the main point of this sentence is the fact that the entrances were closed because they were in the security perimeter. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Ref 47 adequately cites For example, the trading floor requires 3,500 kilowatts of electricity, along with 8,000 phone circuits on the trading floor alone, and 200 miles of fiber-optic cables below ground but I think it should be made clear that this was in 2001 and thus the figures are illustrative but not necessarily accurate to the current function. (I would also move this mention towards the end of the paragraph so you're ending with the more 'high-tech' stuff instead of talking about plumbing and pneumatic tubes after fiber optic cables.)
      • I have clarified the sentence as being a 2001 statistic and moved it to the end of the paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Don't see the cofferdam dimensions listed in Ref 54 (might be on another page?)
      • As per your above remark about minute architectural details, I'd removed this earlier, but I forgot to mention it until now. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm a bit confused by the listed trading floor dimensions of 109x140x72 feet, when the explanatory note give different dimensions that don't correspond to those quoted dimensions. If you're using another set of quoted dimensions, that should probably be made clear (and if there's that much variation, maybe exact figures shouldn't be used or treated as definitive?)
      • I've moved this to the footnote as well, since the quoted figures vary quite a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • "Ivy Lee wrote"—who? It's been a long time since Lee has been mentioned in the body, and his title is a bit unclear. If he was a publicist connected with the building, it feels weird to privilege his opinion in such a way.
      • I clarified who he is. Thanks for the review David Fuchs. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Support with feedback addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• My understanding is that "Classical Revival" and "Neoclassical" are not synonymous, eg [66]. Can the style in use here be elaborated?
  • It is indeed Classical Revival, as that is less strict than neoclassicism and also supported by sources such as the National Park Service. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "occupying two-thirds of the city block" - source?
  • I have removed this. It's not precisely two-thirds, but the map in the AIA Guide to New York City indicates that there is another structure occupying the southern end of the block. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "contains a pediment designed by John Quincy Adams Ward" - the text lists two designers, which is correct?
  • I've added Paul Wayland Bartlett's name to the lead as well. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the Garage" or "The Garage"?
  • It uses sentence case. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN2 includes NYC.gov and FN3 does not, FN4 includes mta.info and FN 6 does not - check for consistency throughout
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN39: why not cite the original source?
  • I was originally unable to find the original source, but I think in this case the LOC actually meant "From the NYSE..." Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• CTBUH is a publisher not a work
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• FN85 has a missing-URL error, and check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • I have removed all locations. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Ranges should use endashes, even in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the source review Nikkimaria. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

This is five weeks in and has only collected the single general support. Unless further signs of an emerging consensus to promote are evident within a day or two I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• Why isn't Lower Manhattan linked in totality in the first sentence?
  • I've done that. I don't know why this occurred in the first place but it must have been an oversight. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• ", serving as the" -> "which serves as"
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• The lead doesn't appear to cover the "southern third" if there is one?
  • The southern section is part of another building, but it is probably not notable. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Link facade in the lead (you link it in the main article).
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "of the NYSE," put (NYSE) after the first use of "New York Stock Exchange".
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "previous building ... previous building..." repetitive.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "had become overcrowded" again, a touch repetitive from the previous reasoning for a new building.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Three more trading..." instead of "more" perhaps "additional"?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "NYCL No. 1529" doesn't appear in the prose.
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• Any reason just two parameters in the infobox are inline referenced and the rest are not?
  • I've removed these per MOS:INFOBOXREF. They are all cited in the prose now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• In the "Site" section, Lower Manhattan isn't mentioned at all.
  • Done. Sometimes I forget that the vast majority of people aren't familiar with NYC's geography. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the September 11 attacks of 2001" i don't think "of 2001" is needed to disambiguate here.
  • Removed. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the NYSE Building" use this abbreviation after the first instance in the prose, not the second.
  • Done, I think. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the Downtown Alliance proposed" what is that?
  • Clarified. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to the "Design" section, more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Thanks for having a look. I have addressed these points now. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
• @The Rambling Man: Is there more to come on this review? (t · c) buidhe 12:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, just not able to focus much, a little under the weather. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• "It is at the same location ... on the same site" this feels like it's saying the same thing to me.
  • Removed the second instance. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "primary structures. The southern structure" repetitive.
  • Reworded. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Isn't Revivalism (architecture) a better link than Neoclassical architecture which doesn't actually mention "Classical Revival" once?
  • I changed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "137 feet 8.5 inches (42 m)" this feels odd, the imperial units are given to nearest half-inch, while the metric units to the nearest metre??
  • This was a weird effect of using "0" as the target unit in the {{convert}} template, rather than "m". Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "podium made ... The podium is" repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "are massive windows" massive feels POV.
  • Compared to regular windows, they are extremely large (about 100 times the size of a 6-by-8 foot window); the precise dimensions are given immediately afterward. Hence the use of the words "massive", "extreme", etc. That wording is also used in the sources. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "representing Commerce and Industry" etc etc why capitalised?
  • I lowercased these. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Is there a link for balustrade?
  • Added. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• What is Georgia marble? Is it marble laid by the Georgia Marble Company?
  • Georgia marble is marble from the U.S. state of Georgia in this context. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "several setbacks. There are setbacks" repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "heavy cornice" literally or figuratively?
  • Literally. (Though many rooftop cornices are heavy in terms of weight, a "heavy cornice" is particularly deep.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• What is a transom?
  • I added a link. It can refer to two things: a solid bar or a transom window. In this case it's the former. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Link dumbwaiter.
  • Linked. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "3,500 kilowatts" you've already used kW as the abbreviation.
• Any reason you haven't converted this?
  • Fixed both of these. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "200 miles" and this?
  • Fixed as well. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• What are "employee rooms"?
  • These are specifically for maintenance employees in this context. In other contexts like houses, employee rooms are used to rest, eat, etc., as well as certain physical work. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "floor.[50][18] The" ref order.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "building had a steel safe" had? No longer?
  • I'm not really sure. The NYSE isn't really clear about that and, given the security concerns of today, I don't think they'll readily provide that info. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• " rock.[50][47][52] The" ref order.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• " an extremely high" extremely feels POV.
  • Reworded. Typically the water table in this part of Manhattan is a few dozen feet below ground, which is still pretty shallow, but it's almost at ground level here, since Broad Street used to be a canal. So it's unusually high even for the area. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• "excavated.[53][52] The" ref order.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "Trading floors", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The floor surface... The floor is ..." mildly repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "walls are clad in marble ... walls are clad with marble..." same thing twice, no?
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Link coffer. I see you link coffered ceiling but that's after this usage.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "baths" like literally baths to wash in or bathrooms?
  • Literally baths to wash in. (They had barbershops and doctors' offices for health, so might as well have bathing areas as well.) Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Link wainscott.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "space was converted into an event space" space space.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "The Stock and Exchange Board's membership ... The Stock and Exchange Board, originally..." repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "cost $1.25 million" inflate.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "The NYSE solicited proposals for a structure that had banking space on the ground floor, as well as those with none" reads odd to me, what are the "those with none"? proposals?
  • Yes, I've clarified this now. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "last day in ... eight days" repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "The New York Times reported" link this work here.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "led to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913" what does this mean in the context of the building itself? What was the impact?
  • Good point, I don't actually think this impacted the physical building. I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "war stocks" what were they?
  • I changed this to "wartime stocks", which were traded during the war. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "assessed at $1.9 million" inflate.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "was to be connected" why "to be"?
• "were to be combined" similar.
  • Both of these indicate that, at the time, these were future plans for the building. I've reworded them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "share prices on the exchange collapsed" for the Panic, you gave a numerical indication of the impact on the value, can you do the same here?
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "though this was kept secret" why?
  • The sources don't say specifically. For such a prominent structure, the fact that a marble decoration was being replaced with a metal replica wouldn't have gone over well with the public. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• "women were allowed on the building's trading floor" to actively trade, it's not clear?
  • Yes. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

That takes me to "1950s to 1980s", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• The Rambling Man (t · c) buidhe 05:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yup, coming back to this later. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• "skyscraper. Part of the skyscraper" repetitive.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• "building entirely. The building" likewise.
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• "an $11 million" inflate.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• "The NYSE Building as seen at Christmas" perhaps add this was pictured in 2007.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• "the Hudson River" link.
• "September 11, 2001 terrorist" comma after 2001.
  • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• "for less than half" for fewer than
  • Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Any more details on Kobbe's book?
  • I added a publisher. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That's it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: - Just making sure you saw these. Hog Farm _Talk 03:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: thanks for the heads up.

@The Rambling Man: thanks for doing such an in-depth review. I have addressed all of your points now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - Are you satisfied with the changes made, or do you think more work is needed? Hog Farm _Talk 07:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me, so moving to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review

I see an image review has not been done yet, so let me look through the media used.

• Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. No image copyright issues.
• ALT issues:
  • Infobox image needs an alt
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_LC-USZ62-124933.jpg – Optional to add that the photograph is black-and-white
    • Since the primary purpose of the alt is to assist vision-impaired users (or users whose devices don't load images), this might be unnecessary. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:New York Stock Exchange Boardroom - New York - Flickr - hyku (6).jpg – Suggest more descriptive alt (e.g. A large elliptical/curved wooden table with two rows of seats in the boardroom)
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:New York Stock Exchange, 1909.png – shouldn't it be "colored postcard"?
    • In this case, "color postcard" is correct, as "color" is itself being used as the adjective, like color photography. It's weird, but that is how it is. Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • File:NYSE on Broad Street (1).jpg – Suggest that the caption be the alt text, while the caption to be about the NYSE leasing three floors at the adjcaent Commercial Cable Building on 20 Broad Street.
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:NYSE Xmas Time.JPG – Add that the columns have Christmas decorations forming the American flag
    • Done. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • File:The fearless girl takes on NYSE (47406406981).jpg – Is it necessary to blur the sculpture? Can't just take a photo of the full sculpture from further away to fulfil De minimis? Otherwise, an alt for this image be: A sculpture (blurred) Fearless Girl in front of the New York Stock Exchange Building, with a large US flag across the building facade.
    • Unfortunately, the street in question is only about 15 meters wide, and the sculpture is on the opposite side of the street from the NYSE Building (there are only about 1-2 meters between the sculpture and the building behind it). I've clarified that the sculpture is blurred instead. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Issues above satisfactorily clarified. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

HF - drive-by comments

I don't think I'll have time for a full review, but a skim reveals some smaller issues.

• " announced an $11 million (equivalent to $0 million in 2019)" - something has gone very wrong with the inflation template here
• Exact NRHP date in the infobox doesn't seem to be directly cited anywhere?

  @Hog Farm, thanks. I have fixed both the issues now; the former was a rounding error and the latter was a mistake that I overlooked. Did you see any other issues with the article? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  - I didn't see anything else, although I'm unfortunately not going to be able to give this one a full review for time reasons, though. Hog Farm _Talk 02:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  Fair enough. Should we wait for the other coords to make a decision on the nomination (congrats on becoming a coord by the way). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

  I have no idea if this disqualifies me from closing this or not. Hog Farm _Talk 17:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I am so tempted to leave you swinging.

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2021 [67].

---

Cyclone Dumazile

Nominator(s): Noah^Talk 21:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC) & ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs}

This article is about Cyclone Dumazile, the third in a series of five storms that brought heavy, damaging rainfall to Réunion in 2018. Noah^Talk 21:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Image review looks good (t · c) buidhe 21:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

Support - I'm happy with the work done to the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• that brought flooding to the east coast of Madagascar and Réunion - that implies east coast of "Réunion". I think it works fine if it's just "flooding to Madagascar and Réunion."

• Done. Noah^Talk 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• In Réunion, Dumazile came less than two months after Cyclone Berguitta dropped torrential rainfall over the island in mid-January. This meant ongoing repairs to bridges and reconstruction efforts after Berguitta were interrupted or set back, especially on the highway between Îlet Furçy and Cilaos. - I think this could be stronger, and I have issues with "came less than two months" and the flow, and not sure about how . Something like - "Cyclone Dumazile followed less than two months after Cyclone Berguitta affected Réunion, disrupting ongoing repairs to bridges and reconstruction efforts." Then you can mention the heavy rainfall from Dumazile (ideally with the rainfall total), and then you can get into the damaged road network, where you can mention the highway.

• Believe I did what you want here. Noah^Talk 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• So you mention the roads in two parts, once related to floods/landslides, and the other due to trees. Any way of combining all three into a single mention of the roads?

• Done. Noah^Talk 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• " In Madagascar, rainfall warnings were issued for most of the east coast and some flooding occurred in Toamasina, as a result of malfunctioning drainage systems after Cyclone Ava in January. " - split into two sentences. One for the warnings, the other for flooding.

• Split. Noah^Talk 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Is it worth linking the other places in Madagascar other than Toamasina?

• Looks like Diana Region has an article... the others do not. Noah^Talk 23:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Could you mention somewhere in the lead and the MH that the storm formed in the South-west Indian Ocean? Kinda important.

• Done. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• "A pocket of dry air to Dumazile's west caused the cyclone's low-level circulation center to briefly become exposed, before it was quickly obscured by new bursts of thunderstorms.[" - is "obscured" the right term here? Usually, people think of "obscured" as a negative thing. Could you explain what it means for the circulation to be exposed (dislocated from the convection), and another verb describing the new burst of thunderstorms.

• Reworded and simplified somewhat. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:40, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Could you add in the MH how close the storm got to the east coast of Madagascar? Ditto for how close it got to Reunion? (or at least a mention of the island, considering how much the article describes the effects there)

• We are having some trouble finding sources for this, but we will keep looking. Noah^Talk 01:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• I found something stating the distance for Réunion, but I can't seem to find anything similar for Madagascar. Noah^Talk 11:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Floodwaters cut off access to Saint-Denis from all but one road. The coastal and mountain highways were closed;[24] a section of the latter road was covered in debris after a landslide occurred. Strong waves submerged four lanes of the coastal highway with seawater, and 150 mm (5.9 in) of rain fell on a cliff overlooking the road." - I'm confused, was the "latter road" the "all but one road"? Or is there only one mountain highway? Maybe talk about these roads separately, since incidents happened on both?

• Adjusted and clarified what I meant about the cliff part. Noah^Talk 22:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Has the RN5 highway been rebuilt yet?

• As far as the source says, it is no longer closed. Looks like more projects were proposed to take place. Noah^Talk 22:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• What is "The MNS station"?

• Added in that it is a beach surveillance station. Noah^Talk 23:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Reunion section is a bit weirdly formatted. It would be nicer if there was a paragraph on preparations/preceding storms, one on the general impacts (and the bit of aftermath), one on the more specific impacts? There doesn't seem to be a logical flow right now.

• @Hurricanehink: Is the organization better now or is more restructuring required? Noah^Talk 22:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is the only part that I still think needs work. You mention roads in three separate paragraphs, ditto landslides. Like, I get that the first paragraph mentions the preparations and some meteorological details, but what is the heirarchy of the other three paragraphs? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Hurricanehink: The first paragraph has general information regarding roadways (damage/closures) on the island, the second one contains numerous specific occurrences (specific roads closed/affected and in towns), and the RN5 highway is mentioned in the last paragraph due to the prolonged closure and aftermath associated with it. I didn't think it made sense to mention the RN5 highway being closed in one sentence and then bring up the highway again later. I adjusted the landslides (other than the RN5 highway occurrence) since there wasn't much structure for it. Noah^Talk 03:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It's a decent article right now, but needs some more love. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC) "Getting better. All of my concerns were addressed but one. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Clayoquot

(Just starting this. More comments to come.) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ref #37 is to a Tweet. Shouldn't we be referencing the news story instead of a Tweet about the news story?

• Replaced. Noah^Talk 22:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• "with its Dual Frequency Precipitation Radar" - why is this level of detail on instrumentation important?

• Simply using radar isn't sufficient enough. There are many types of radar and a reader could think it was a doppler radar or another type commonly used, which it isn't. Noah^Talk 22:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Setback" is used as a verb. "Set back" is a verb; "setback" is a noun.

• Changed. Noah^Talk 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Ports were also damaged by the waves, and in the case of Saint-Gilles, was clogged by debris." - this reads a bit awkwardly as it mixes plural and singular. Perhaps reword it as "Ports were also damaged by the waves, and the Port of Saint-Gilles was clogged by debris."?

• Changed. Noah^Talk 01:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Amid favourable environmental conditions, Dumazile strengthened" had me doing a bit of a double take. Can it be rephrased to avoid suggesting conditions that intensify a storm are a good thing?

• This kind of phrasing is commonplace in meteorology. It isn't meant to imply the conditions were a good thing, but rather in the context of the storm, they were good for it. I have modified it to avoid mentioning favourable. Noah^Talk 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the disturbance improved in organisation" - as above, try rephrasing to avoid terms like "improved" which suggest that the storm was a good thing. Perhaps "the disturbance became more organised"?

• Changed to the disturbance's organisation increased. Noah^Talk 01:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to declare Dumazile became" isn't quite grammatical. I think this should be " to declare Dumazile had become"

• Done. Noah^Talk 01:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "water boil advisory" should be "boil-water advisory". See Boil-water advisory for other synonyms.

• Switched and linked. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• The part about lack of potable water, water dearths, etc. needs clarification. "Water dearths" is an odd phrase - can you say this another way? The source seems to be saying that tap water was cut off temporarily to certain areas. This doesn't necessarily mean that there was a lack of potable water (e.g. bottled water may have been available, or there may have been ways to collect rainwater).

• Went to look at the source and reworded. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Authorities worked to clear out drainage systems" - why is this worthy of note? Isn't this something authorities do routinely?

• Removed. Noah^Talk 23:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• "multiple projects were proposed in December 2020 to further safeguard the highway from the effects of weather events as a result of the 2018 shutdown's long duration" - could use rewording, as it could be interpreted as saying that weather events were caused by the long duration of the shutdown.

• Is that better? Noah^Talk 23:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yup. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• The lead refers to "riots" in Toamasina, but the body of the article mentions only one riot. I ran the cited Malagasy source through Google Translate and it translated the event as a "student strike" with four students charged with property damage. Are you sure the source(s) say "riot", and if so how many riots were there?

• Changed to protest even if that is misleading since the source doesnt explicitly state riot. Im assuming it to be OR for me call it a riot even if there is property damage and looting by the whole involved group. Noah^Talk 13:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• Are there any other sources that can help clarify the nature and significance of this incident? There's a big difference between a riot, a strike, and a protest. When I first read the Wikipedia article I got the impression that people rioted because they objected to how the government was not doing enough to keep power on. After reading a translation of the source, I came away with the impression of students taking advantage of the darkness and chaos to let off steam about nothing in particular. If the only source is the one Midi Madagasikara article, I wonder 1) whether it's important enough to mention in the lead, and 2) do you understand Malagasy well enough to know exactly what the source is saying, or if not, can you enlist someone who does understand Malagasy? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  There's not really anything source-wise that can help to clarify this. Sources are far and few for the African continent, especially for storms like this that aren't very damaging or especially deadly. I can attest that while searching in Malagasy, I found absolutely no results. We did search some local news sites written in Malagasy to find the two sources you mention below. Most of the local Madagascar sources I found were written in French, which is another official language for the country. The word in this case directly translates as strike with protest and riot being vastly different words. The reason I originally labeled it a riot was because it met the common legal definition of one, specifically in regards to the destruction of property and looting. Would you recommend I put it as a strike per the source? I can remove this from the lead since it wasn't a severe event. Noah^Talk 23:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  I understand the constraints. I guess "strike" is the best term to use, although it raises the question of why the students were striking. I agree with removing it from the lead since this is the only available source - if it was more significant it would probably have been picked up more widely. Thanks for looking into this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Modified to strike. Noah^Talk 23:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

  Why was the strike added back to the lead? Also, do the sources support saying that the strike was instigated by power outages? Reading the L'Express source, it says that the students had been involved in several disturbances and that their behaviour during Dumazille was "the drop that made the vase overflow," suggesting that the incident during Dumazille wasn't by itself major. The source mentions one power outage but does not suggest that power outages were the motive. It would seem strange to respond to a power outage by throwing rocks at passing vehicles on the highway. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

  I saw "Dumazile caused power outages in Toamasina on 4 March, sparking a strike.[64][65]" below, and added it back to the lead on the premise that it's notable and interesting enough, being a direct effect of the storm (though the L'Express source now appears to contradict that). I think Noah may be more familiar with what's going on here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Two of the sources directly mention the power outages as the motive while the L'Express source doesn't mention the motive specifically for this instance, however, it does state this was part of a pattern. That source is also focusing more on the events following the strike rather than the strike itself. I have again removed it from the lead as I don't think it is notable enough for there. Noah^Talk 13:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. One more issue on the student incident: The new L'Express source doesn't use the French word for strike, which is "grève". It uses the French word "manifestation" which usually translates into English as "demonstration" or could be translated as "incident". I suggest using the generic term "incident" as the sources don't seem to agree on the term "strike" and the event sounds more like people acting like jerks than anything else. Or consider not mentioning the incident - students being expelled for acting like jerks is routine stuff whether or not there is a hurricane. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I fixed your comment since I assume you meant to reply to both of ours. I changed the word to incident per your request. There is a difference in my opinion between acting like jerks and de facto rioting. I believe most people would want to see the conclusion to this similar to saying whether or not a dam failed or possibly something else. It provides a conclusion to the event. Noah^Talk 00:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• I noticed there are only two sources in Malagasy. What kind of search of the Malagasy news was done? Was there a search of print-only sources? Can this topic be written about comprehensively without a wide range of Malagasy sources? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• Further to my comment above: It's great to see so many French-language sources. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

• In regards to both of these comments, I found an online local news cache containing a number of sources that can be used for Madagascar (apparently not available in the various search engines). It will take a while to go through all of it, although I did see some just corroborate what sources already in this article have. I likely will have some time tomorrow afternoon to begin that. Most of the sources in question are French, however, there are a few Malagasy ones as well. Over 2/3 of the Madagascan media sites don't even mention Dumazile period so it likely was just isolated to a few regions. Noah^Talk 00:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

  Great, thanks for looking into this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:44, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• Update: I have added in everything except the Newsmada site. I haven't looked at any of the articles there yet in detail, however, they do have an extensive coverage of Dumazile there. EDIT: I found 9 total sources, some of which just corroborate details already in the article. Noah^Talk 14:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have added in every source I found for Madagascar. I will revise the lead as needed either after my exam tonight or sometime tomorrow. Noah^Talk 21:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• KN went ahead and revised the lead earlier today. Noah^Talk 18:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fantastic. I'll try to finish reviewing this weekend. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Schools were suspended in The Ambalavola District was left underwater" - it looks like some words were accidentally deleted here.

• Deleted since I reworded the statement and placed it elsewhere. I just forgot to delete that portion of the sentence I had started. Noah^Talk 11:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilinking: Where other cyclones (Bergitta, Ava, etc.) are mentioned, it would be very helpful to link to their articles. At a minimum, link these names on the first occurrence after the lead (in addition to in the lead, which was already done). Linking once per section would not be overkill in this case.

• Linked. Noah^Talk 11:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• New sources look great. I admire how much work you've put into collecting local perspectives. I have a few more comments below, in addition to my comment above about the strike.
• I don't understand this sentence: "Strong winds and heavy rains destroyed flat houses, light poles, and metal sheeting from Toamasina to Ste Marie". What is a "flat house"? Are you sure metal sheeting was destroyed, as opposed to being blown off buildings? Metal sheeting is difficult to destroy.

• Linked to the appropriate article for the first part. Unfortunately, the source doesnt elaborate on whether the sheets were blown off. It simply lists the items as being destroyed, similarly to how I have done. Reason would indicate the sheets were blown off and/or damaged beyond use. Noah^Talk 13:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. The term "flat house" needs to be changed, as a flat is by definition not a house. If the article uses British English you could use "housing flats". If the article uses American English, the term would be "apartments". Or you could just say "homes".

I ran the source through Google Translate and it was written in present tense, saying "All the way to Ste Marie, heavy rains and winds are destroying the concrete buildings, light poles and metal plates." This, if Google's translation is correct, doesn't fully support the assertion that these things were destroyed; a more accurate term would be "caused damaged to". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Weird... I ran it through just now and got a different, but similar output. I changed it to damaged and homes. Noah^Talk 00:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 73 has the title of an unrelated story. The title should be “Météo : Dumazile s’éloigne progressivement des côtes”

  Swapped the title; there were two stories on the same webpage for some reason. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why is the title of ref 33 in English?

  Fixed. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 06:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• I believe this meets the FAC criteria now. Thanks for your great work. Happy to support. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Support from TRM

• Why is the name "Intense Tropical Cyclone Dumazile" in the opening sentence? Intense Tropical Cyclone Dumazile doesn't link here and the common name is just Cyclone Dumazile. Why is "Intense Tropical" in bold too?

• Intense Tropical Cyclone Dumazile is the official name of the storm, however, per our naming conventions we shorten the article title to Cyclone Dumazile as it is more concise and less cumbersome. Intense Tropical is included in the bold as it is a part of the full name of the storm. I created the appropriate redirect for the link you mentioned. Noah^Talk 18:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "in Salazie," link?

• Linked in lead. Noah^Talk 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Îlet Furçy" ditto

• Linked in lead + body. Noah^Talk 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Map plotting the track and intensity of the storm, according to the Saffir–Simpson scale" but how? That's not explained. I imagine it's to do with the track colour, but that doesn't appear to have a key. And is that detail accessible to people with screen readers?

• There is a key on commons that is in the summary for the image which explains the plotting. No, this map is not accessible to people with screen readers. Given the graphical nature of the map, it would be impossible to display the data for people with screen readers unless the map and its key were physical. Any changes to these maps, such as including the commons key in the EN WP template, would require consensus considering the template is transcluded thousands of times. Noah^Talk 18:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• In all honesty, I'm not bothered by the "thousands of transclusions" argument. We have to make images accessible, especially in our "finest" work. If you don't want to do that, that's your prerogative, but I won't support articles which prevent information being accessed by people with restricted access. If you can't make the same information available to those who can't see the image, then it's an immediate oppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no way to make a graphical map 100% accessible and I consider that to be unactionable. I did incorporate some locations into the alt text to hopefully convey the path a bit better. The information on which this track map is based can be found in the meteorological history section. We mention the path the storm took and the major status changes. I get that you want all the data it contains to be 100% accessible to those who can't see, but that's not possible. I can work on getting the key added (likely also has to be in image form for technical reasons), but that will take time and consensus. Added the key into the box in text format as I found a way to make it work without bloating the track box up (to avoid creating sandwiching issues on numerous articles). I BOLDly added it in since I found a way to make it less intrusive. Noah^Talk 18:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "at Grand Îlet. " this is the only geographical entity which appears to be redlinked. Logic?

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "barriers in Tampon were" link?

• Linked. Noah^Talk 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "during Cyclone Ava.[52] Knee" overlinked.

• Removed the excess linkage. Noah^Talk 02:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• What are CISCO and ZAP schools?

• Added notes explaining what CISCO and ZAP stand for and what type of schools they involve. Noah^Talk 16:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Refs 59, 60, 62 and 67 have spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Ref 7: SHOUTING.

• Took the caps off the name. Noah^Talk 21:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• Any chance of translating those non-English reference titles using trans-title parameter in the citation templates?

• Titles have been translated. Noah^Talk 02:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed all of the concerns above except for the one that I view as unactionable. Noah^Talk 16:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort you've gone to in order to address my issues. I realise that translating a map into something accessible is a real challenge, but you've done a good job, and thank you. I'm also happy with the remainder of my comments, so I'm supporting this nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from CodingCyclone

Note: Requested on my talk.

• "was named Dumazile the next day" You can probably remove "Dumazile" here. It's already established twice that its name is Dumazile.

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 20:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Cyclone Dumazile followed less than two months" For some reason, "followed less than two months..." is clunky to me. Can you change it to "made landfall affected the area less than two months"? Slightly changed. codingcyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 18:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Adjusted appropriately to avoid repeat wording. Noah^Talk 20:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "That night, increased thunderstorm activity in conjunction with an easterly wind burst furthered development, and the MFR reported that the system became Tropical Disturbance 06 at 06:00 UTC on 2 March; at the same time, the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (JTWC) classified the system as a tropical depression." Seems a bit long. Maybe split up at "...2 March; at..."

• Done. Noah^Talk 20:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "to declare Dumazile had" Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but it should probably be "to declare that Dumazile had".

• Done. Noah^Talk 20:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "pre-warning was ended" "Was" can probably be cut.

• Done. Noah^Talk 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and daycare facilities" Is there a specific reason for adding this detail?

• Removed. Noah^Talk 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "East and westbound traffic, traveling across the island, was restricted to the Plaines highway due to other roads flooding." Pretty sure the two commas can be cut, and a comma should be added after "highway".

• Done. Noah^Talk 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "after the storm...during the storm." Repetitive.

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "during cyclones Berguitta," The same wording was used just a couple sentences before. Maybe cut "cyclones"?

• Can't cut cyclone since this would force the reader to assume the new storm mentioned is also a cyclone. I reworded two instances to avoid "during". Noah^Talk 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "cyclones Ava," Same thing.

• See above. Noah^Talk 20:55, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The RN5 highway later reopened; multiple projects were proposed in December 2020 to further safeguard the highway from the effects of weather events. These proposals occurred as a result of the 2018 shutdown's long duration. Authorities in Saint-Paul municipality worked to create a barrier made of boulders, repair an observation deck, and repair ramps leading to the Roches Noires beach. The project was estimated to cost about €46,000 (US$56,000)." Any update on this one?

• RN5 highway one has the latest update. For the Roches Noires beach, I haven't seen anything mentioned recently about any repairs related to Dumazile. Noah^Talk 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "spilled their banks" Wording seems off; change to "river banks overflowed"?

• This is one of many synomyns meaning the same thing. here is a news story with its usage. Noah^Talk 02:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Residents in Toamasina chose to remain in their homes instead of evacuating to shelters in an effort to protect their property." This is a bit of a generalization. How many decided to remain in their homes? The majority? Or only a relatively small percentage?

• The source states it as a majority of the victims, but that could mean anything. It's better not to speculate as to what they mean. Noah^Talk 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "supplies ran low...supplies ran low" Repetitive wording.

• Changed the first one since it was fuel running running low. Noah^Talk 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all from me. Please ping me when everything's completed. Overall an interesting read! I need to continue working on the timeline for this topic as well. codingcyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 02:04, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@CodingCyclone: I believe I have addressed your comments. Noah^Talk 21:14, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. Now happy to support. codingcyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 21:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from LightandDark2000

• "Yellow alerts were issued for the Manampatrana and Matitanana rivers as water-levels neared critical levels." Don't need the hypen for "water levels".

• Done. Noah^Talk 21:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "sparking an incident in which three passing cars were damaged by rocks, and tires were burned." By whom? The article doesn't provide any clues until a couple of sentences later. The readers should not be left to guess. Also, link "incident" to riot. I think the term should be linked, for the readers' benefit. As for the link target, we should call a spade a spade. Political correctness crap shouldn't affect how we cover our subjects.

• Adjusted the wording in the first sentence. We can't link riot unless it is explicitly called one due to implications. There is widescale division on such things as it was rough to even get riot in for the Capitol attack even with sources calling it one. This certainly shouldn't be called or linked to riot if the sources don't explicitly state that. Noah^Talk 21:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The Ambilobe-Antsiranana road (RN6) reopened on 13 March after suffering flood damage during the storm." Add a comma after "13 March."

• Done. Noah^Talk 21:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I could find. I think that everything else has been covered by the others above. As for the "accessibility issue", I believe that adding the map legend to the track map image template (which has been done), is good enough. Some things just can't be done. Graphics, such as maps (whether it be storm tracks or battle maps) just can't be made accessible to blind people, unfortunately. The Meteorological history is sufficiently descriptive here. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense, we have tools such as alt text and descriptive captions which can help. Your comment is truly unhelpful and incorrect. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Figured I should reply here as well. Alt text for the track maps would run quite long if we were to describe the whole track of the storm in detail. Would just describing the general shape of the track (e.g. "The storm was weak and barely strengthened throughout its lifetime. It generally went northwest during its life.") be sufficient? Or would we have to add more detail to that? codingcyclone ^{please ping}/_{my wreckage} 18:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Really good alt text would describe the journey of the cyclone and its intensity. I'm not an expert, but there's no reason as far as I can tell that alt text can't be completely descriptive of the image, especially when it imparts information that is not accessible otherwise. I guess the other way of looking at it is to just forget people with accessibility issues by saying "it's not actionable". I dunno. Personally, at the moment I have no issues with my access, but I know people who do and it would be great if Wikipedia could uphold great standards, not just claiming comments can't be addressed. But I understand that takes time and energy. I supported the nomination and the efforts made, but I realise it's a really niche requirement. I guess one day we'll all understand that a tiny bit more effort makes it much much better for a tiny set of society. Easy to overlook or dismiss that effort as "in-actionable" when it's truly not. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Really good alt text would describe the journey of the cyclone and its intensity. This is what the text in the meteorological history is for. Also, what's your suggestion for the alt text for Dumazile's track map? Destroyer (Alternate account) 01:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@LightandDark2000:I believe I have addressed your comments. Noah^Talk 21:22, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Now Supporting. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Destroyeraa

I'll do more of this tomorrow. Destroyer (Alternate account) 01:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why is the track map located in the middle of meteorological history section? I prefer it to be adjacent to the first paragraph, similar to all other tropical cyclone articles.

It's located there to prevent MOS:SANDWICHING issues. The text in the met can get scrunched between it and the infobox on screens larger than my own laptop's. Noah^Talk 02:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• I'm not happy with listing a general damage figure in the infobox when the text shows this to be a figure associated with only a specific sector and only a specific place. It may be technically true because of the >, but it's misleading. Suggest omitting.

• Removed it. Noah^Talk 01:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Torrential rainfall, peaking over 1,600 mm (63 in) in Salazie" - the text supports that number at that place, but doesn't specify that it was a peak. Source for this?

• Changed that as I never intended for this to be represented as a peak rainfall. Noah^Talk 01:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN27: the publisher name at the source site appears to be different? And FN34 appears to be the same site and has a slightly different name - check throughout

• Fixed. Noah^Talk 01:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why does News Mada not include full names for authors?

• Full names are not listed out for the authors. Some have first names only and others have first name with a last initial. Noah^Talk 01:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, I see that - I'm wondering if you know why that is the case. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• I asked KN and we both don't know why the names aren't fully listed out. It also appears that their site is currently down as well. Noah^Talk 13:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• There appears to have been some discussion of this cyclone in the research literature, eg [68]. What was your approach to looking for sources?

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• I believe the article now contains an accurate representation of academic literature. Noah^Talk 13:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Can you elaborate? What was your approach to developing this representation? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• I had to use the Google Scholar and ones I have access to through my university (found nothing else through ebscohost and the university) specifically to find more academic literature, rather than general searching through various search engines. Does Google Scholar need to be included in these references or should that be excluded? Noah^Talk 09:31, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• No - my question was more about 1c rather than 2c. That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

@FAC coordinators: Would it be okay if I nominate another article? Noah^Talk 11:23, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hang on for now Noah, I am waiting to see what Nikkimaria makes of your recent tweaks to the sourcing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 October 2021 [69].

---

R-1 tank

Nominator(s): Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, fellow editors! I have just published the R-1 tank article and I am attempting to promote it to the FA class. It's the first time I am doing this. I've read through the criteria and used multiple FAs as models, namely Panzer I and Verdeja (both of which are old nominations), as well as a more recent one—Union of Bulgaria and Romania. I hope my article is good enough to join the FA club. :)

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: The Flickr photos that have been nominated for deletion have had their license changed by the uploader since then, which has led to the nominator withdraw their request. All of the article's other photos have been reviewed as well, their license having been considered adequate. Lupishor (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review—not passed

I see some serious issues with the image licensing in the article. A lot of the images are derived from photocopies with unknown authors. But reproduction of a two-dimensional work doesn't generate a new copyright, what we care about is the original photograph and whether it is in the public domain both in the source country and the United States, or the photographer / their heirs have agreed to release the photograph. (Some WWII photographs are public domain, but by no means all.) I can help with determining copyright status, but in general you have to know more information than you have provided, especially the author of the photograph and the first publication date. Also, for future reference, the WP:Volunteer Response Team should be contacted by third parties who own the copyright to media and want to release it under a free license.

• On the other hand, the flickr photograph licensing looks acceptable since these are original works that have been released by the copyright holder.
• Less important issue: what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Ideally it is stated in the image description for verifiability. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, @Buidhe:. I wasn't aware that the original image matters more than the photocopy. Considering that the three licenses that were used here can also be applied to the photos of the article in question, changing the license should solve the problem.

What exactly do you mean by what source was used to create File:TACAM R-1 historical reconstruction.png? Do you mean the program I used? If yes, I will just write it down in the image's description.

Kind regards, Lupishor (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused by what it says in PD-RO-photo. It says "since issuance", is that since creation or since publication? If the latter you need a publication date that's sufficiently early. Also, several of the captions indicate that the photographs were taken in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovak requirements are different, to be in the public domain a photograph with no known author must have been published before 1946.

Ideally you would specify the source you consulted to determine the colors and other information in the image (such as the shape) but the means of creation is not necessary to specify. For example, this map cites a source. (t · c) buidhe 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The photos used in the article are from Czechoslovakia and Romania, with one being from the Soviet Union. For the Czechoslovak ones, this license should do it, since they were all taken on territory of what is now Czechia. I see that the photos used on LT vz. 34, which is a Good Article, also use a similar license. The Romanian license I've linked above should also work—there are photos on Commons using it that have been uploaded 10 years ago, such as this one. From what I understand, what matters about that license is that "non-artistic photographs were not expressly protected by copyright", with the "issuance" part you referred to only counting for photos meant to be "artistic" (works of art?). For Soviet photos, the license used here should work.

Thanks for the explanation on the source thing. I will make the changes tomorrow. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The PD-RO-photo explains what happened to the copyright where it expired, but I don't see where it says that non-artistic photographs remained in the public domain after the 1996 law. The Czech template cannot be used unless you find a publication at least 70 years ago as stated on the template. For it to be PD-US all the conditions listed on the template need to be satisfied, including previous publication (before March 1989). (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: Hello. So I've read through the full Romanian license. "Since issuance" is given as de la apariție, meaning "since it appeared/since creation". It doesn't specify they are referring to publication, so I think the license is safe to use. As I said, there are many photos using it on Commons that have been around for 10 years. I don't think it would have been the case had the license not been adequate. This license can also be used.

For Czechoslovak photos, the EU license should also work. The photos were first published in the 1930s, since they had to be shown to the Romanian side who was interested in acquiring that vehicle. What confirms this is that I've found at least one of them in Romanian works, which are based on Romanian archive material, indicating they had been made public to the Romanians back then, despite having been taken in Czechoslovakia.

I am going to modify the licenses right now. Best wishes, Lupishor (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No, you cannot assume that the photographs were published in the 1930s. Publication requires that these particular photographs have been distributed to the public, so anyone could obtain them, while military technology is often not fully disclosed to the public. There's a ton of copyvio on Commons and the deletion process is broken, so you cannot assume that if the photograph is not deleted it must be OK. (t · c) buidhe 23:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: All I can hope for then is that the Romanian photos are still ok, given what I said above about the license, so the image review can at least get an "only partially passed". About some of the photos taken in Czechoslovakia, it is possible they were taken by Romanian military commissions. However, I'm not sure if this makes the Romanian license applicable to them. Lupishor (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

If a Romanian person or entity was the original copyright holder, then I think the source country would be Romania. However, it's not sufficient to be public domain in the source country, it also has to be public domain in the US for use on Wikimedia. I think it may be more productive to revisit the licensing issue after you get some supports based on the content of the article. (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for nearly three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

It is regrettable that this has not attracted more attention, but I am afraid that it has timed out. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

• As a general rule, I'd discard all Cold War-era technical sources as tainted by incomplete documentation and political agendas. So no Chamberlain & Ellis, Kliment and Doyle, etc.
• Kliment & Francev needs its title translated and I'd be curious to know if it had any relationship with an apparent 1997 English translation. But that bit's not really a concern for this review.
• Volonchuk needs an OCLC number.
• What makes articles on warspot.ru reliable?
• Be sure to tell the reader what each non-English language source is written in.
• Zaloga, Kliment, Spielberger and Axworthy are known to me as highly reliable sources on Romanian/Czech armor. No way for me to evaluate the foreign-language sources.
• No formatting issues for the citations.
• No spot-checks made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 October 2021 [70].

---

Sustainable energy

Nominator(s): Clayoquot and Femkemilene Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Over the past 2.5 years, this article has been completely rewritten from high-quality sources. I believe it’s now global in scope, reflects the most current accepted knowledge on the topic with balanced coverage of its many aspects, and gives the general reader an understandable overview of a complex topic. In the past six months, this article has been given Good Article status, copyediting, and a round of in-depth Peer Review, and we've incorporated very valuable feedback from these processes. Thanks in advance for taking the time to read this; we look forward to your comments. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Image review licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 21:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

I will leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead:

• "Definitions of sustainable energy typically include environmental aspects such as greenhouse gas emissions, and social and economic aspects such as energy poverty" - The comma before "and" is unnecessary. Unless this is a serial list with an Oxford comma and more than 2 terms (which this does not appear to be), if the clause that follows isn't a standalone sentence, you can usually do without a comma before "and". Additionally, do you mean "There are many definitions of sustainable energy, most of which include..."

  You're right. Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Switching from coal to natural gas has environmental benefits" - Has environmental benefits in the short term, I assume.

  It arguably has environmental benefits in the long term as well, as coal emits a lot more CO2 per unit of energy generated. Should the lead say something about this? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Clayoquot, yes, I think it would be good to mention that briefly. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I added "including lower greenhouse gas emissions". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The global energy system, which is 85% based on fossil fuels" - This is worded awkwardly. Something like "The global energy system derives 85% of its output from fossil fuels" or "Eighty-five percent of the global energy system is based on fossil fuels" may work better.

  Great suggestion. Reworded. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the Paris Agreement" - This may be well known now, but I would put a date to this, like the "2015 Paris Agreement", since this may get a bit out of context later.

  Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "To make deep cuts in emissions" - "Cuts" sounds informal, I'd just say "decreases".

  Changed to "reductions", which is more usual for the literature. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Well-designed government policies that promote energy system transformation can lower greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality simultaneously, and in many cases can also increase energy security." - Similar to my first point, the comma that precedes "and" is unnecessary. I'd check for this throughout the article.

  Done this one. Will start looking for the rest. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  Done, I think - I took on a comma-scrutinizing trip through the article.

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Definitions and background:

• "1987 report, Our Common Future." - This comma may be omitted.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "sustainable development as development" - The repetition of "development" in such close succession is awkward, so I would suggest rephrasing this as something like "It defined sustainable development as meeting 'the needs ...'"

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• Another thing I noticed is an inconsistency in the usage of an Oxford comma. "environmental, economic, and social dimensions" uses it; "access to affordable and reliable energy for all people, workers' rights and land rights" does not. I would standardize this through the article.

  Most of them were Oxford, so tried to make consistent. Likely that I missed at least one. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I searched for the word "and" throughout the article and found a few more places to add Oxford commas. I think this item is done now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The international Paris Agreement on climate change" - Would mentioning the year of the agreement be effective here, too?

  Done, not quite sure. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "World Health Organization (WHO) recommended limits" - This should be "World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended limits", because "recommended" is a suffix to "WHO"; i.e. the WHO recommended the limits, so there should be a dash.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• "which causes in an estimated" - "which causes an estimated"?

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• (Image caption) "A woman in rural Rajasthan,India collects firewood. The use of wood and other polluting fuels for cooking causes millions of deaths each year from indoor and outdoor air pollution." - There should be a space after the comma after "Rajasthan" and a corresponding comma after "India". But more to the point, the image pushes down the next graphic, the map of people with access to energy. I would recommend relocating the image (or just removing it if the image isn't essential).

  Corrected caption, not yet puzzled with image placement. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've removed the other figure, as I found it difficult to understand without zooming in. Too much of the text / graph could only be understood on the full-screen image. Femke (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Energy conservation:

• "Paris Agreement" is already linked above; I think it can be unlinked per MOS:DUPLINK.

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "use less materials" - This should be "use less material" (where "material" is a generic uncountable noun) or "use fewer materials".

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "development of energy-efficient infrastructure to encourage changes in transport modes" - Toward the aforementioned public transport, walking, and cycling?

  Yes. Would you like to see this added? If modes is jargon, happy to of course, but prefer to keep sentence length lowish. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  "Modes" is fine, but I think the clarification would also help. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "United Nations targets for 2030 include a doubling of the rate of improvement in energy efficiency" - I think this should be rephrased slightly because it currently is an awkward phrasing. Do you mean something like "The United Nations aims to double the rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030"?

  Done. FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• "however improvements have slowed in recent years" - Any specific decades?

  Done. Femke (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Efficiency improvements often lead to a rebound effect in which consumers use the money they save to buy more energy-intensive goods and services.[43] Recent technical efficiency improvements in transport and buildings have been largely offset by trends in consumer behaviour, such as purchasing larger vehicles and homes." - To me, the second sentence seems like a continuation of the first sentence. So would this be "As a result, recent technical efficiency improvements..."?

  I've combined the sentences with "for example". FemkeMilene (talk) 14:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. Epicgenius (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Epicgenius:, did you want to have a look over the rest of the article still? No hurries of course :). Femke (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll conduct the rest of the review now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Sustainable energy sources:

• "far less greenhouse gas emissions than fossil fuels." - I'm not sure if this should be "far fewer...emissions" or if "emissions" is uncountable here, so I'm not going to explicitly recommend changing it, but I'd recommend taking a look.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "providing access by 2030.[49] United Nations targets for 2030" - "Providing access by 2030" refers to the targets, correct?

Not as far as I know although the main authors may correct me - tweaked to hopefully clarify Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The panels are mounted on top of buildings, or installed in utility-scale solar parks." - The comma is unnecessary as this isn't a serial list, and the last part of the sentence does not stand alone as a clause.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Solar panels require energy for their production, equivalent to under two years of their own generation" - Not really an issue, just a general question, but does this mean it takes fewer than two years for a solar panel to produce as much energy as was used for its production?

  I've changed to your wording. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also a general question, are there specific countries that specifically stand out for their use of solar, wind, and hydro? If so, are they worth mentioning?

  Historically, Japan/Germany for solar, and Denmark for wind and Brazil for hydro. For hydro there is enough geographic concentration that it's worth mentioning. Sun and wind are less remarkable. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Turbine blades are not fully recyclable and research into methods of manufacturing easier-to-recycle blades is ongoing" - This sentence would benefit from a comma between "recyclable" and "and".

  Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Power is produced from the steam created from underground reservoirs" - Should this be "created in" or "created by" underground reservoirs?

  In. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "It can either be burned to produce heat and to generate electricity or converted to modern biofuels such as biodiesel and ethanol" - I think this sentence structure could be revised to one of two options: "It can either be burned ... or be converted", or "It can be either burned ... or converted".

  Done. Femke (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In the United States, corn-based ethanol has replaced around 10% of motor gasoline, which requires a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest" - Does the ethanol or the motor gasoline require a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest? If the former, then the phrase "which requires a significant proportion of the yearly corn harvest" should be moved to just after "corn-based ethanol".

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Deployment of BECCS at scales described in some climate change mitigation pathways would require converting large amounts of cropland" - I assume said pathways describe large-scale deployment.

Depends what you mean by "large" - personally I cannot see that happening anyway because surely the aviation industry would outbid them for cropland to make biofuel for long-haul flights. So I would like to remove the sentence entirely but I defer to the main editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions in the short term, however in the long term it does not provide a path to net-zero emissions." - I would suggest "Switching from coal to natural gas reduces emissions in the short term, but it does not provide a path to net-zero emissions in the long term." for consistency in sentence structure.

I would like to remove this sentence as some reliable sources describe it as a "bridge fuel" for example https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/16/the-first-big-energy-shock-of-the-green-era But I defer to the main editors. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "progress has been limited" - Economics of nuclear power plants may be an unexpected link for this one per WP:EGG, but I'm not sure if there's a better way to address this.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 18:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Energy system transformation

• "Some energy-intensive technologies and processes are difficult to electrify" - Is this related to the second point of the preceding bulleted list? I assume this is regarding converting energy sources to electricity rather than using an energy source directly.

Amended. If still unclear please ping me Chidgk1 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Building overcapacity for wind and solar generation can help to ensure" - "can help ensure" may be more concise but I don't know if this is different in other varieties of English.

Done - fine with us Saudi Arabians of wind Chidgk1 (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of energy share consumed as electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020" - A doubling from 2020?

seems correct and clear to me already - if you think unclear please could you explain further Chidgk1 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, I think the em-dash (as used in this section) would be unspaced, while an en-dash would be spaced, per MOS:DASH.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some air conditioning units are still made to use refrigerants that are greenhouse gases; as some countries have not ratified the Kigali Amendment to only use climate-friendly refrigerants" - The semicolon should be a comma since the second part of the sentence wouldn't be a standalone clause.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• What is LPG? I don't think the acronym is too widely known compared to others.

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Are there figures for how much buildings use energy in comparison to the whole? (Overall I couldn't really find too much to nitpick about this section.)

Done Chidgk1 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Government policies

• "or new buildings are heated by electricity instead of gas" - This should be "or that new buildings..."

Ha as British English has been specified for the article I trump you - er I mean I out-biden you Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Can carbon pricing be briefly described in a few words?

Unfortunately I cannot think of a way of describing it using a number of words between 2 and many Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've given an example, and made another sentence simpler. Femke (talk) 19:42, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "These place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies, to ensure that industries subject to internal carbon prices remain competitive." - The comma here probably is not necessary.

I think it is necessary for screenreaders to pause very briefly Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "In the fossil fuel industry, 6 million jobs would be lost" - Would any other industries be hurt by a transition?

Good question - I was surprised to read that in Turkey where I live economists say some jobs would be lost in low-skilled industries such as textiles due to workers moving to higher skilled industries such as our solar module and wind turbine factories - but I am afraid I don't have any info on global effects on other industries Chidgk1 (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The source is a bit vague on where those jobs are lost, but mentions mining and fossil industry. Reading the underlying report, it's clear that this number includes other sectors. I've amended the text. Femke (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Finance

• "which are not attractive to the private sector" - I guess this implies financing is provided by both governments and the private sector, but government funding is more prevalent in low-income countries?

Yes the source says " International public financial flows are critical to reach these investment levels and to leverage the necessary amounts of private capital, especially in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has dramatically increased investors’ risk perception and shifted

public funding priorities in developing countries." but just copying that would be a bit long. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of an extra $100 billion per year " - Immediately after the signing of the agreement, or by some certain date? This is a pledge from all signatory countries, I guess.

As far as I know there is no timescale - but I have clarified re countries Chidgk1 (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks good. Most of my nitpicks are grammatical and not content-based. Epicgenius (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Epicgenius I hope Femke and I have answered to your satisfaction. I am not watching this article but please ping me if any of my changes (or non-changes) are not sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Support - I don't see any significant issues with the article. There are a few minor things that were more rhetorical than in need of actual repair - for example, my "A doubling from 2020?" comment was more of a confirmation than an actual query. But they shouldn't impact the FAC. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by JJE

Is it imperative to have citations in the lead? I am not sure whether the sources like swissinfo, New York Times, www.canada.ca and Vox are good enough for a FA. Images seem well placed. Is ourwordindata a good source for File:Elec-fossil-nuclear-renewables.svg, File:Global primary energy consumption, OWID.svg, File:Energy use per person 2019 - OWID.svg and File:People-without-electricity-country-2016.svg? I remember reliability concerns in the context of their COVID-19 coverage. Some of them are also old. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Jo-Jo, it's good to see you here. Femke, do you have any thoughts on how we're using OWID? I'll start looking into the other sourcing issues. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo do you have links to any past discussions about OWID where concerns were raised? I searched the Talk archives of WikiProject Medicine and could only find positive things being said about OWID's maps.[71] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't really familiar with OWID before working on this article, but became slowly convinced its a HQRS based on its exclusive use of HQ sources itself, its transparency/explanation of data use and the fact it won a few awards for scientific reporting. Also curious to indicators to the contrary. For each of those images, we have the most recently available. FemkeMilene (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like I was mentally confusing worldometers with OWID, so nevermind what I said about OWID. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed or replaced the Vox, Swissinfo, and Canada.ca refs. Canada.ca is the official website of the government of Canada so in general it's a solid source, but the source I replaced it with is somewhat stronger and more neutral for this particular claim. As for the New York Times, my impression from WP:RS and WP:Identifying reliable sources (science) is that it's a high-quality source for news and current issues but not for "science". Jo-Jo can you elaborate on your concern about the NYT, e.g. are there particular claims sourced to the NYT that should be sourced to a non-news source? Also, do you have the same concerns about using the BBC as a source? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

"news and current issues but not for "science"." that's exactly the concern I have. It's one thing to use a source like that to establish that something has been noticed (I use NYT on Uturuncu for this reason) but it's a different matter if you are using it as a source for a fact.

However, I am not sure how widely shared my concerns are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, you're one of the very few brave souls who's volunteered to review this article, so I'm interested in your concerns whether or not they're widely shared ;) The article's current use of the NYT is for the following statements:

1. In Malaysia and Indonesia, clearing forests to produce palm oil for biodiesel has led to serious social and environmental effects, as these forests are critical carbon sinks and habitats for endangered species.
2. Developing natural gas infrastructure risks carbon lock-in and stranded assets, where new fossil infrastructure either commits to decades of carbon emissions, or has to be written off before it makes a profit.
3. Nearly all of the world's current supply of hydrogen is created from fossil fuels.
4. Heat pumps provide both winter heat and summer air conditioning through a single appliance.
5. Energy-specific programs and regulations have historically been the mainstays of efforts to reduce fossil fuel emissions.
6. Carbon pricing has encountered strong political pushback in some jurisdictions, whereas energy-specific policies tend to be politically safer.
7. Some governments are exploring the use of carbon border adjustments, which place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies, to ensure that their industries remain competitive.

These are all factual claims, but they're in different disciplines. I'd say #1 is a science claim so I agree that one should be replaced with a scholarly reference. The rest are claims about technology, economics, and policy issues, which the NYT is generally very good at. Looking at claims #2 through #7, do you think all of them would benefit from different sourcing? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'd prefer if most of that were sourced to things like textbooks and academic sources since many of these statements are really academic ones not journalistic things. But one issue with FAC is when reviewers start demanding that articles comply with personal preferences that aren't based on the actual FA criteria. So I am a little uncertain on how much to push this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think a case can also be made that #2 would benefit from a scientific citation, but I feel #3-#7 are fine. FemkeMilene (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll look for better sourcing for # 1 and 2, and also 3, 5, and 6 as I can probably do these quickly. My thinking on when to use academic vs. journalistic sources is a bit different from how Jo-Jo approached sourcing in Uturuncu: There are times when it's hard to find academic sourcing for a basic fact because the academic literature assumes the reader knows it already; #4 is a good example of this. #7 is another kind of statement for which I think news sources are valuable because they have the most up-to-date information. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I added new refs for #1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. Let's get ourselves together again at some point to have a broader discussion around how to define "high quality" sourcing. While it's fresh in my mind, background information like #5 can be very difficult to source in the academic literature. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Lede is now reference-free. Femke (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Some more comments. Citation format looks consistent. Is there any kind of history behind the sustainable energy concept? Political opposition and debate? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Definitions section covers the history and evolution of the concept. In terms of political opposition, the Nuclear energy section and the Government policies section describe some controversial aspects of sustainable energy. There are differences between academics on how to define "sustainable energy" but I didn't find evidence that these differences have been political in nature. Is there something in particular that you'd like to see more detail on? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No, I wanted to make sure that the lack of discussion of these aspects was deliberate & well-justified. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Any more comments @Jo-Jo Eumerus:? And would you maybe be willing to turn this into a source review? Femke (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but between moving houses and User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Ojos del Salado I am a little indisposed at the moment. I'll try to get a source review done here, but it may take days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll try to make this now on the basis of this version. Are these sources well reputed enough to be quoted in Wikipedia voice? They look like they might be advocacy sources - reliable but not necessarily for a broad judgment. Why does #21 and #137 have a quote? Sometimes publishers are italicized and sometimes they aren't. Ditto for links. I don't see any other citation that prints out the website like #168. Some references link the organization(s) and others don't. Beyond this it seems like the source usage here fits the FA requirements. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

IEA and IRENA are considered the two authorities on energy matters. Both have a bit of a bias: the IEA has a history of underestimating renewables, whereas IRENA is sometimes said to be too optimistic of renewables (but has also underestimated solar historically). They are both intergovernmental organisations. IEA is a part of the OECD, whereas IRENA has a more global membership. As high-quality sources, they tend to agree. Where they disagree (mostly about future projections), we've either used indirect voice or used a different high-quality source.

The quotes in 21 and 137 are scars of an old edit war. I think they can be deleted. @Clayoquot:?

Nikkimaria has just taught me below how to use publisher/work properly, so bear with us while we're correcting that. Femke (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with deleting the quotes. Good description of the biases of the IEA and IRENA. One of the reasons we relied on the IEA so heavily is that it's historically been perceived as an economic organization rather than an environmental organization. The New York Times recently said, "The influential agency is not an environmental group but an international organization that advises world capitals on energy policy. Formed after the oil crises of the 1970s, the agency’s reports and forecasts are frequently cited by energy companies and investors as a basis for long-term planning."[72] So when the IEA says that the energy system can be made more sustainable, we wouldn't expect the reader to roll their eyes and think, "Of course the IEA would say that". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed the quotes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus I believe we've fixed the consistency issues with the formatting of citations, and all the issues you raised have been addressed now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, it seems like this passes the source review. Note I didn't do a spot check and I don't know enough about the topic to say whether any major source was missed, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Jens

• achieving this goal will require that emissions be reduced as soon as possible and reach net-zero by mid-century.[16] – is this still up-to-date?

  Yes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Together with solar thermal, geothermal energy met 2.2% of worldwide demand for heating in buildings in 2019.[78] – That unfortunately doesn't tell us what the share of geothermal energy is without including solar thermal?

  Because it's such a small share of global demand, it's difficult to find a good statistic. Spent about an hour searching. I've replaced it with a Our World in Data source about geothermal energy (heat+power). This source puts it at 0.9% together with tidal and wave. Given that tidal and wave are insignificant, it's probably 0.9% on its own. I've said less than 1% in the body. Femke (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Second-generation biofuels which are produced from non-food plants – only non-food plants, or waste as well?

Good catch. The source says waste is also used. I added it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• My biggest concern so far is the nuclear power controversy section, which I don't think meets WP:NPOV:

• The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy,[121] although for each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources.[122] – This reads like "science" vs "public", which I don't think is true (science itself is split about the topic). And the "perceived risk" sounds a bit as if the public would be ignorant and if the risk would not exist.
• nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources – this is stated here as fact, but is certainly not an universally accepted opinion. It obviously depends on how "safe" is defined and measured, and then, there is a risk factor that is very difficult to quantify (e.g., natural disasters, potential terrorist attacks on power plants), especially when accessing the risk for future generations.
• Public opposition often makes nuclear plants politically difficult to implement. – For which parts of the world is this valid? Even in Europe, there is considerable political opposition as well. Can we really blame the "public" here?
• You give a lot of room to the EU expert groups, maybe reduce that to one shorter sentence. There is a similar debate if gas should get the "green" label in the EU, which is not mentioned in the article at all, for example. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are all good points. We should describe the aspects of safety that are in any claims about safety, and I think we can summarize the conclusions of the JRC with more nuance than the single word "sustainable". I'll revisit the sources and propose some new wording in the next few days.

W.r.t public opposition, the source says this is an issue "in democratic societies" as opposed to authoritarian governments. I think the current wording already implies that the statement is about countries where public opposition matters. The point this sentence is trying to make is that from a policy maker's perspective, nuclear involves both technical and social challenges/obstacles, regardless of whether the social concerns are justified. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In trying to rewrite the JRC findings before and especially other expert groups, I found few mainstream sources covering it. I think a short sentence max is better. I had hoped that the EU would have made a decision on this by now. Femke (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

In terms of safely: estimates of mortality from nuclear differ by an order of magnitude between the industry's estimate and Greenpeace's estimate, but all fall squarely below fossil. The problem here may be that people underestimate how deadly fossil fuels are, making this sentence seem more controversial than it is. We can more explicitly put this in the past tense (has been). I agree with Clayoquot that explicitly mentioning mortality rather than the vaguer word safety can be a solution? Femke (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes that sounds reasonable. It needs to be clear that, what is described, is the mortality per unit of energy in the past, and doesn't include potential future disasters that are difficult to predict. But when talking about safety of nuclear power, I think the latter is the main concern of those who oppose it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• How does this sound to replace the first two bullets above: "For each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy has caused far fewer accidental and pollution-related deaths than fossil fuels, and the historic mortality rate of nuclear is comparable to renewable sources."?
• I think "Experts from the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the scientific expert arm of the EU, stated in April 2021 that nuclear power is sustainable.[122] Two other groups of experts—SCHEER (Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks) and the Euratom Article 31 expert group on radiation protection—largely confirmed JRC findings in July 2021" should be deleted. I don't see much point in including the opinions of named expert committees because expert opinions vary on the nuclear issue. It's become apparent over the past few months that the JRC's findings don't even represent an EU-wide consensus.[73] As Jens pointed out we don't, and shouldn't, name supporters for other controversial energy strategies such as fossil fuel switching, hydrogen production from fossil sources with carbon capture, and the burning of wood pellets as fuel.
• Your comment "the latter is the main concern of those who oppose it" inspired me to do some digging on the unpredictable disasters (e.g. terrorism) and on the reasons for public opposition. A 2010 OECD report (p.27) found that terrorism and waste disposal were the biggest reasons for opposition (note that this report was pre-Fukushima). A 2017 U.S. study that asked people to give reasons for opposition in their own words found that "Dangerous, unsafe, accident, leaks" was the biggest reason, which is a much more general concept than accidents. In light of these two sources, it's probably undue weight to say that "The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy" so I think we should remove that.
• I drafted how the above three changes would look [here].
• If we remove the two sentences about the JRC above, we should add something else positive. What do you all think of adding a sentence saying that multiple analyses have found that nuclear power is crucial for reaching climate targets, sourced to this new UNECE report (p. 1) and the IEA Net Zero report (p. 14)? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• That all reads very good! Regarding your last point, you already have this: Climate change mitigation pathways consistent with ambitious goals typically see an increase in power supply from nuclear.[10] – This seems to be almost the same content, so maybe the new addition should be combined with/connected to this? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The IPCC SR15 still managed to create a 1.5 scenario without nuclear iirc, so the word crucial may contradict that. More importantly, that would make the wording stronger than for solar "Various projections of future energy use identify solar PV as one of the main sources of energy generation in a sustainable mix.". However, solar plays a bigger role than nuclear in all those scenarios. We already have a sentence about nuclear's role in reaching net zero. Don't think we need to add another. Femke (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Great point about solar and wind having robust consensus for a much larger upscaling. I didn't know that the IPCC created scenarios for 1.5 degrees - can you point me to the section number for that?. I thought they limited themselves to analyzing the scenarios that had been created by others, and in this analysis they recognize that some scenarios no longer see a role for nuclear fission by the end of the century.

Here is a different idea for adding a positive statement: How about "After shutting down nuclear plants in the 2010s, Germany and Japan both increased coal-fired electricity production to make up for the loss of capacity." Sources: NBER, Wired, and Financial Times.? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this isn't simplifying it too much though. Just because there is a correlation doesn't necessarily mean there is causality. In Germany, the share of gas in power production decreased during the same time from 12.1% to 10.5%, even though gas was supposed to replace nuclear (together with the renewables). The problem was the European Union Emissions Trading System: The prices for CO2 emissions became extremely cheap in the 2010s, thus favouring coal (see graph in linked Wiki article). Source for this (although a German one): [74]. Regarding Japan, the article you linked is behind a paywall, this is far from ideal. Do you have another source for it? In any case: Do we need an additional positive note about nuclear at all? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Germany, see also this graph for context: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung#/media/Datei:Energiemix_Deutschland.svg It's in German again, but black and brown are coal, purple is gas, red is nuclear. It also shows that since 2013, coal and nuclear are decreasing in Germany at the same time. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jens that we don't need another positive note about nuclear. Almost the entire second paragraph is already positive. The third paragraph is quite temperate in how negatives are described.

The German case is indeed quiet complex. For instance, their anti-nuclear movement was important in the solar revolution.[75]. Femke (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

OK. I'll implement the other changes I proposed, and won't add a new positive at this time. Fingers crossed that these changes won't destabilize the consensus for this section. Thank you both for a very interesting discussion. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Make sure that the images illustrate what is described in the text:

• The image "Construction of salt tanks to store thermal energy": I don't see this discussed in the text at all. And thermal energy from what source? I don't find this very helpful without more explanation.

• I've replaced it with a battery storage facility. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a high-quality picture of a battery home storage pack, which may be even clearer. Femke (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The outdoor section of a heat pump" image: heat pumps are discussed further down but not where this image appears. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I've changed both the caption and the text to make the connection clear. The other logical location, buildings, already has too many images. Femke (talk) 09:09, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• There now is a formatting issue (stray wikitext) in the "Environmental issues" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

  Solved. Femke (talk) 19:17, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Excellent article overall, thanks for working on this immensely important topic. As soon as the nuclear power section is improved on, I should be ready to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Trainsandotherthings

• "The combustion of coal releases gases which form into ground-level ozone and acid rain, especially if the coal is not cleaned before combustion." This comes immediately after a sentence talking about fossil fuels and biomass in general. It might be good to reword this to emphasize that it is not just coal which is the problem (though it is the worst offender).

Reworded to cover more sources of the precursor chemicals to acid rain. BTW I also removed the part about ground-level ozone as it's only one of the types of air pollutant that are dangerous to health (another major one is particulate matter). Femkemilene might want to do further adjusting here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the section on energy conservation, I recommend elaborating a bit more on what energy intensity really means. If statistics are available, I'd suggest their inclusion. Without any units, the concept seems too abstract to me. What does it mean to double the rate of energy efficiency improvement, and are statistics available for that?

Great ideas, done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Consider changing the section titled "Energy sources" to "Sustainable energy sources" for clarity.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Costs of solar photovoltaic cells have dropped rapidly, driving strong growth in worldwide capacity." If possible, quantify this for the reader. I know that the costs have quite greatly dropped, but quantifying would make this easier to understand, in my opinion.

I am sure there must be lots of quantification in more specific articles - if done here too it might just become a burden for future editors to keep up to date Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• The paragraph on concentrated solar power feels out of place in its current location. I would move it ahead of the paragraph above about solar panel disposal.

Risk of doing that would be that readers might think that concentrated solar power uses panels, whereas any panels are just co-located PV Chidgk1 (talk) 10:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The noise and flickering light created by the turbines can be annoying and constrain construction near densely populated areas." I would reword this to "can be considered annoying by humans". As written, it feels inappropriate to make such an objective statement in Wikipedia's voice.

Reworded as "can cause annoyance", which is how the sources often phrase it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I would swap the order of the last two paragraphs in the hydropower section.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the geothermal section, I would include a brief explanation of how the heat used comes from the Earth's mantle. I would also mention how geothermal can cause issues with the nearby water table.

As the geothermal section is already almost as long as the solar section I think adding water table info would be too much detail. Also the current "deep underground" is less technical than "mantle" and I suspect some of the heat comes from radioactivity in the crust. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the geothermal section, can you elaborate on what "median life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions" means? It is unclear to me, and I imagine it would be more unclear to an uninformed reader.

Reworded. It means adding up all the emissions of all aspects of what it takes to locate and extract geothermal energy, but I think this is implicit. Let me know if you think it should be said explicitly. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the biofuels section, I would add a mention of Landfill gas utilization.

That's an interesting article. Unfortunately I couldn't squeeze this in without giving undue weight to landfill gas, which is a small aspect of bioenergy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Two tidal barrage systems in France and in South Korea make up 90% of total production." I recommend a clarification that this means 90% of total marine energy production globally, not just in those two countries specifically.

  Reworded. Femke (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I will add more comments on the rest of the article in the near future. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• "Switching from coal to natural gas has advantages in terms of sustainability." I would change this to "Switching from coal or oil to natural gas..."

  Typically, oil is used in transport, while coal and gas are used in power generation. This would unnecessary lengthen the sentence. Femke (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "For a given unit of energy produced, the life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions of natural gas are around 40 times the emissions of wind or nuclear energy but are much less than coal." If possible, I would provide a number to compare natural gas to coal, to give a better sense of scale.

  Just one sentence further :). Femke (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  You are right, I suppose what I meant is to give a number for the emissions of coal, per unit burned (ex. The burning of coal produces XYZ kilograms of CO2 per BTU or KWH). It may not be necessary though. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

  Even as a researcher in the field, I don't have an intuition for these numbers. I don't think they will convey information to our readers. Femke (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Building gas-fired power plants and gas pipelines is promoted as a way to phase out coal- and wood-burning pollution and increase energy supply in some African countries with fast-growing populations and economies, but this practice is controversial." Promoted by who, exactly? And who says it is controversial? I don't doubt the accuracy, but a reader may want to know who these views belong to.

Rewrote this sentence to be global rather than Africa-centric and to convey facts rather than opinions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The greenhouse gas emissions of fossil fuel and biomass power plants can be significantly reduced through carbon capture and storage (CCS)." Consider a wikilink for carbon capture and storage.

  Has been wikilinked before. Femke (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• In the Fossil fuel switching and mitigation section, the last paragraph goes back and forth between cost and efficiency for CCS. It might be better to talk about one of them in the first half of the paragraph, and the other in the second half.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and nuclear power plants can create fissile material that could be used for nuclear weapon proliferation." I would either delete the word "can", or reword this to say something along the lines of "nuclear power plants can be used to create fissile material...".

Deleted "can". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The perceived risk of nuclear accidents has a major influence on public opinion of nuclear energy, although for each unit of energy produced, nuclear energy is far safer than fossil fuel energy and comparable to renewable sources. Public opposition often makes nuclear plants politically difficult to implement." These two sentences are in a paragraph that deals with the debate over sustainability over nuclear energy. As these two sentences are about safety and public opinion, which is a different issue, I recommend moving them out of this paragraph and into their own new paragraph. This could also go with the last paragraph of the section, which mentions progress in nuclear development has been limited recently.

I shortened this paragraph considerably to address other comments in this FAC. Please let us know if you have further suggestions for reorganization. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The emissions reductions necessary to keep global warming below 2 °C will require a system-wide transformation of the way energy is produced, distributed, stored, and consumed." Change will to would, as unfortunately there's no real evidence the world has agreed to make the necessary changes.

My memory (which may be biased) is that "will" is more consistent with the sources. The world agreed on a 2 °C (or less); "would" would carry a bit of an implication that we're still making up our minds on the target rather than procrastinating on execution. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some energy-intensive technologies and processes are difficult to electrify, including aviation, shipping, and steelmaking." I recommend adding a brief explanation as to why these areas are difficult to electrify.

Great idea. Added in the Transport and Industry sections. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Full decarbonization of the global energy system is expected to take several decades and can mostly be achieved by deploying existing technology." Change technology to technologies, plural.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The International Energy Agency states that further innovation in the energy sector, such as in battery technologies and carbon-neutral fuels, is needed to reach net-zero emissions by 2050." This would be a good place to mention the current issues with batteries, and what changes in technology are needed to make them work as a part of sustainable energy.

Working on this one. The issues with grid batteries are somewhat different from the issues with vehicle batteries. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Added issues to the Energy storage and the Transport sections. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The transition to a zero-carbon energy system would bring strong co-benefits for human health:" Nothing specifically wrong here, but make sure the article is consistent in tense. This is a hypothetical (would) but in other places "will" is used instead, implying a certainty. Double check that will is only used when appropriate.

Changed to "will" Chidgk1 (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Historically, several countries have made rapid economic gains through coal usage, particularly in Asia." I feel that this is unfairly singling out Asia, when the same can be said for Europe and North America.

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Pumped hydro storage and power-to-gas (converting electricity to gas and back) with capacity for multi-month usage has been implemented in some locations." Can you list any examples of implementation here, particularly installations that can be wikilinked to?

  I think linking to individual installations would be undue. We don't do that for others either. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "One of the easiest and fastest ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to phase out coal-fired power plants and increase renewable electricity generation." Consider rewording to "phase out coal-fired power plants in favor of increased renewable energy generation" to emphasize that both steps must be combined.

  Not quite. Going from coal to nuclear is also a really good option for GHG reductions. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of energy consumed as electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020." This can be reworded as "Ambitious climate policy would see a doubling of the percentage of energy consumption used for electricity by 2050, from 20% in 2020."

  Rewritten. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The predominant method is steam methane reforming in which hydrogen is produced from a chemical reaction between steam and methane, the main component of natural gas." Add a comma after reforming.

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Disadvantages of hydrogen as an energy carrier include high costs of storage and distribution due to hydrogen's explosivity, its large bulk compared to other fuels, and its tendency to make pipes brittle." I would replace "bulk" with "volume".

  Done. Femke (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• The transport section under energy usage technologies could use some expansion. Some points to mention here:

• Note that rail transportation for freight is more fuel efficient than by truck, and therefore more sustainable
• Developments in making freight transport sustainable, such as battery electric locomotives, electric trucks, and alternative fuels
• The significant greenhouse gas emissions from ships as a consequence of bunker fuel
• Less use of aviation for transportation
• Mention what percentage of greenhouse gas emissions come from transport, I believe it is a significant percentage

I added some info but think some of what you mention would be too much detail for this article Chidgk1 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I need to take a quick break, and then I will keep going through the article and make further suggestions. Great work on the article, I know I'm making a lot of comments but I am really nitpicking here, and I fully expect you will not adopt some of them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Even more arbitrary break

• In the buildings and cookiPng suggestion, I recommend linking to Geothermal heating. Geothermal energy is mentioned already, but without a wikilink.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Heat pumps provide both winter heat and summer air conditioning through a single appliance." I would remove the words winter and summer to get to the basic point you are trying to make here: heat pumps can do both heating and air conditioning.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The IEA estimates heat pumps could provide over 90% of space and water heating requirements globally." This is not 100%, so that would imply there are situations they will not work. If so, can a mention of situations where they are not feasible be made here?

Looking at the source I don't think it says they are not feasible in other situations, but implies that there might be a few cases where they are less carbon efficient than gas boilers - even if we knew what those cases might be (very difficult to put larger radiators in a historic palace as have to move each brick in turn perhaps, blocks of flats which already have gas-fired communal heating maybe) I think they should be in the heat pump article and are too much detail to go here. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Cooling of buildings can be made more efficient through passive building design, planning that minimises the urban heat island effect, and district cooling systems that cool multiple buildings with piped cold water." As written, the reader might be led to think that passive building design = planning that minimizes the urban heat island effect, when they are two different things. A rewording is in order here, along with a brief explanation of what passive building design means (I read the article and I'm still confused personally).

Changed the link to go up to the comma and to another article. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Air conditioning requires large amounts of electricity and is not always affordable to poorer households." Change "to" to "for".

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Cooking with these fuels is generally unsustainable because they release harmful smoke and because harvesting wood can lead to forest degradation." Add a comma here after unsustainable, and another after smoke.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The universal adoption of clean cooking facilities, which are already ubiquitous in rich countries, would dramatically improve health and have minimal effects on climate." As written, this seems to imply that clean cooking facilities would not help with sustainable energy, which I don't think is the intended message. I would reword to say something like "and have minimal negative effects on climate."

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The more energy-intensive activities in industry have the lowest shares of renewable energy as they face limitations in generating heat at temperatures over 200 °C (390 °F)." For consistency, either change "more" to "most", or change "lowest" to "lower".

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The production of plastic, cement, and fertilisers also requires significant amounts of energy, with limited possibilities available to decarbonise." Check subject-verb agreement here.

  Production ... requires, seems correct. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• In government policies, add a date for the quote in the box.

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Environmental regulations have been used for over fifty years to promote more sustainable use of energy." For the sake of the article standing the test of time, I recommend changing this to instead say something like" Environmental regulation have been used since the 1970s..."

  Done. Femke (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Urban planning to discourage sprawl can reduce energy use in local transport and buildings while enhancing quality of life." Reword this to something like "Urban planning which discourages sprawl" or "Urban planning policies which discourage sprawl"

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Government-sponsored research, procurement, and incentive policies have historically been critical to the development and maturation of clean energy technologies such as solar PV and lithium batteries." I suggest refraining from using the PV acronym here, as it may confuse readers into thinking there are three examples here instead of two.

  Done. Femke (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Carbon taxes provide a source of revenue that can be used to lower other taxes" I'd add that this revenue would go to governments specifically.

  Not done. Already in definition of tax. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Some governments are exploring the use of carbon border adjustments," Can you name any examples here?

  Done. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "which place tariffs on imports from countries with less stringent climate policies" I would make tariff a wikilink.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Countries may support renewables to create jobs." This sentence could be reworded, something like "Countries may also support renewables as a means of creating jobs."

  Not done. Average sentence length already a bit high. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The International Labour Organization estimates that efforts to limit global warming to 2 °C..." I suggest noting that the ILO is a UN body.

Not sure the extra words are worth it but if you or anyone else think better it could become "The International Labour Organization, a United Nations agency, estimates ...Chidgk1 (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• "It predicts that 24 million new jobs would be created in areas such as renewable electricity generation, improving energy-efficiency in buildings, and the transition to electric vehicles, while 6 million jobs in the fossil fuel industry would be lost." Is there a timescale for this, say "over the next 10 years"? It seems unlikely this would happen immediately.

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Underfunding is particularly acute in the least developed countries." It would be worthwhile to mention that this is not necessarily an intentional choice, but may instead be a consequence of low development and low centralization, which means these countries simply are unable to afford sufficient investment in sustainable energy. Also notable is that the least developed countries are some of the most vulnerable, especially low lying island nations in the Pacific.

  The source doesn't really specify, except that it's not attractive to the private sector. I added "which are not attractive to the private sector". Femke (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of additional funds for poorer countries of $100 billion per year for climate change mitigation and adaptation," Reword this along the lines of "The Paris Agreement includes a pledge of $100 billion per year from developed nations for poorer countries to support climate change mitigation and adaptation."

  Rewritten. Femke (talk) 09:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Direct global fossil fuel subsidies were $319 billion in 2017, and $5.2 trillion when indirect costs such as air pollution are priced in." This is a bit confusing as written. I suggest rewriting this to something like "Direct global fossil fuel subsidies were $319 billion in 2017, but equivalent to $5.2 trillion when including the indirect costs of consequences such as air pollution."

  Rewritten. Femke (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Ending these could lead to a 28% reduction in global carbon emissions and a 46% reduction in air pollution deaths." Add "global" before "air pollution deaths."

  Not done, already implied

• "Funding for clean energy has been largely unaffected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and pandemic-related economic stimulus packages offer possibilities for a green recovery." The two parts of this sentence disagree with each other. Change "and" to "but."

  The word "but" implies to me that funding would have been expected to rise. As the source talks about the opposite (expected to drop with the rest of the economy), I think the word 'and' is correct. Femke (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That concludes my comments. I'm happy to further discuss any of my comments here, I'll keep this page watchlisted. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

When all of the things I've mentioned have been addressed, I am strongly inclined to support this FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Trainsandotherthings I just picked off the one or 2 remaining things - I am not watching this article but ping me if any of my changes (or non-changes) are not to your liking. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything I've commented about has been addressed one way or the other. As such, consider me in support of this FAC. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The definition in the first sentence is very close to being a direct quote - I would suggest making it one

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Nuclear power is a low-carbon source and has a safety record comparable to wind and solar". I see discussion of fatality rates in the body, but "safety record" is a broader claim - is there a source for this?

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "its sustainability has been debated because of concerns about ... accidents" is similarly not directly supported, although the article appears to be rebutting this concern

Added supporting statement in the body. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the global energy system is responsible for 76% of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change" - the body qualifies this statistic as "human-caused" emissions

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "causes an estimated 7 million deaths each year". Where is this estimate from? I see numbers in the body, but they don't add up to this

Added to body. I agree the WHO's indoor and outdoor numbers (4.2 million + 3.8 million) don't equal the WHO's total of 7 million, but we can't solve that problem :( Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Buildings in the Solar Settlement at Schlierberg, Germany, produce more energy than they consume. They incorporate rooftop solar panels and are built for maximum energy efficiency." - source?

Good catch. Now reffed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Utility cycling infrastructure, such as this bike lane in Vancouver, encourages sustainable transport." - source?

Another good catch. I've reffed it. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• How did you select which sources to include in the Definitions section? Why OpenLearn?

This was a difficult section to find sources for. At least three of us have indpendently done Google Scholar searches that led to a paper called "Theoretical Aspects of Sustainable Energy", which is a great paper except for the fact that the publisher is predatory. We couldn't cite it because of the predatory publisher, but it led me to the Hammond source which devotes most of a chapter to the issue of how various academics have gone about defining it. So I read that and summarized it. I don't think we really had a selection process - we found so few high-quality sources that we used what we found, if I recall.

I can't remember how we came across the OpenLearn source. It's not university-level, but I don't see any red flags raised in the archives at WP:RSN and the publisher seems legitimate so I don't think it's unreliable. There isn't anything in there that isn't in other sources, but it's the only source on definitions that is free and intended for a general audience so if you don't object I think it's a good one to keep. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's generally unreliable; my question is more, why does it belong in this context. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see now that the Openlearn ref went to an overview page. I've changed the ref to point to the specific page on definitions. Does the inclusion of this page make sense? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN5: the URL provided should be left to the full source rather than the chapter citation

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• WRI is a publisher not a work. Ditto WHO, check throughout.

  Done specifics, but I don't understand the difference between work and publisher well. I know for NYTimes you should only fill out work, and leave out publisher as it's basically the same.. Femke (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, if the two fields are the same/similar we don't need both. "The publisher is the company, organization or other legal entity that publishes the work being cited", per our documentation. Another way of approaching it is to look at our article on the entity, when one exists - if it's not italicized there, chances are it shouldn't be italicized here. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• If you are going to include domains in the website parameter, be consistent in how these are formatted

Done. Many "website" names were publisher names. I moved them to the publisher parameter. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Don't repeat publisher in the author parameter

  I was wondering about that. We did this because this is consistent with the report's "how to cite". They seem to imply they are both the institutional author and the publisher. Happy to remove it, but wanted to double-check. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  It's generally fine to adapt "how to cite" guidance to our local practices, especially since formatting of "how to cite" will vary between sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  In the Sources section, if some items don't have an author parameter, how do we sort items alphabetically by author? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Pick an alphabetization approach and stick with it. You could choose to alphabetize by title or by publisher, inline with the works with named authors or at the end - it doesn't really matter which as long as it's consistent and clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Femke, any thoughts on what convention we should use? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd like to investigate how medical FAs with similar sources do this. Not sorting by author is a bit confusing.. It's not unheard of to use institutional author and publisher both even if they're the same, for instance in APA Style. Femke (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I found an example of this in Major depressive disorder (the NiCE citation), but that article is being revamped. I looked at a few other articles, but most seem to have easy human authors.

  If we have to change this, we could sort by author, and if absent, publisher, so that the sorting stays the same. Femke (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria: When author and publisher are the same, e.g. for the WHO citations, would it be acceptable to fill in the author parameter and leave publisher empty instead of vice-versa? That way every citation will begin with an author name and sorting will look natural. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, if they can be considered corporate authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use wikilinks in citations on first appearance, every time, or not at all

Do you expect consistency in linking authors, publishers, or both? The first two of these options, if applied to authors and/or publishers, would mean having a lot of redlinks in the References section. Looking at recent TFAs, Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji links some author names but not others. Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 links some publisher names but not others. Is there a MOS page that calls for consistency in using wikilinks within citations? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to include redlinks. There is some guidance on what to link in the template documentation for the citation templates, but my query is more tuned to the "consistent citation style" requirement of WP:WIAFA. At the moment we have cases where a particular entity is wikilinked sometimes and other times not, with no clear reasoning behind those decisions. (If there is such reasoning that I'm missing, please share!). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I see. I went through the Sources section and delinked IPCC and UNFCCC, which were linked for no apparent reason. I think that was all of them but would appreciate a fresh set of eyes if anyone still has one. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Actually I missed a bunch. Going through things more systematically now. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

All publishers are now linked Femke (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when you include publication location

Would anyone object if I remove all publication locations? Or do we need to include a location for every citation? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

It is an optional parameter, so if you would prefer to exclude that is not a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Great. Quick check with Femkemilene - would you object to me removing all of them? I don't have a preference. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them. I tried to give them if the source gave them, but omitting all seems less prone to errors. Femke (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN31: SDG Tracker appears to be the work name rather than part of the title

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN33: the Science Hub is the work, the Commission is the publisher. Check throughout for more issues of this kind.

  Done specific example. I don't quite understand how this works. For this IEA source, would the work be "SDG7: Data and Projections"? and the title "Access to electricity"? Femke (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Correct. In that particular case, "Access to electricity" is essentially a chapter of SDG7: Data and Projections. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I think I've got everything now. Femke (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN36 is missing authors

  Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in when/whether you abbreviate organizations versus spelling them out - for example IEA

Done. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you use {{cite report}} for reports, or whether you just cite them as web sources

We generally used {{cite report}} when the report was a PDF file that was long enough to need page numbers in the citation. When there was a web page that summarized the report and the claim was supported by the web page, we used {{cite web}}. In some cases the report is paywalled so there is benefit to the reader when we point them to the free summary. I'm not sure how we could make these consistent except by converting {{cite web}} templates to {{cite report}}, which would in some cases makes things harder for the reader. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I found one place where we linked to the web summary, but cited the report. I've replaced that link now to point directly to the PDF. Femke (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN204 is broken

  Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN152 is missing retrieval date.

  Done. Femke (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to stop here and oppose simply due to the volume of cleanup needed around citations; once that's been done I'm happy to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Thank you for your patience and attention to detail. I've learned a lot about citations in this review. I believe all the issues you raised have been addressed now. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review v2 - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• How are yoru deciding in what cases to include retrieval date? For example FN7 has it and FN173 does not

  I'll take this one tonight. I use a retrieval rate if either the url or the content is at risk of changing. That means a lot of these papers dont need one as the doi is fixed. Some may still need one if we got a separate file that we link to, unequal to doi. Femke (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Removed loads of them. Femke (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Still some stragglers here, eg FN170. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I did a search for doi= as well as all refs that used a cite report template or cite book template, and removed access dates from them. I need to go to bed but I haven't been able to double-check everything, so I'll check things again tomorrow. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure all refs that have a DOI, are reports that are very unlikely to change, or are books are now access-date free. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN20: don't see "overview" in the title at the source

  @Clayoquot:, could you have a look at the text-source integrity there? The source no longer says 91%. Not sure if we've archived a wrong version there, or if another source was used. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  I can't remember what happened either. I found a number that's probably newer, from 2019, and updated the sentence and source. Thanks for catching that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Still some inconsistencies in author/publisher use - eg in FN28 IEA is both, whereas FN42 only publisher

Yikes. I did a search for last= and author= and found and fixed a few more instances of institutional authors in both parameters. I'll check this again later today before marking this issue as done. Femke FYI our convention seems to have evolved such that IEA is used in the publisher parameter for inline references, and in the author parameter in the Sources section.Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Did another search for last= and author= throughout, and publisher= in the Sources section. I believe I got them all. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• U.S. Energy Information Administration or US Energy Information Administration?

  Changed to the official 'U.S. Energy Information Administration'. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why is the work wikilinked in FN107 and not FN105? Check throughout

Done. I checked all work= , website= , and publisher= parameters and found a few more. Fixed all. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Why is work wikilinked in FN85 and not FN7 or FN101? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I went through the journal parameter. I think that's the last alias we've used. Femke (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN174 redirects to the site homepage

  Put a new link in, verified the text again. No archive available yet, but if I understand it correctly, one should automatically become available. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN185: edition statement should be separate from title. (Don't trust Google Books metadata, it's prone to errors)

  Done. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN192: don't see that author at source?

  It's hidden under the "authors and contributions" link. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, in that case we've got other citations missing authors - eg FN108. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've double checked all IEA web sources and Carbon Brief (they also have the tendency to hide authors). I think FN108 was the only one missing still. Femke (talk) 13:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN199: source?

  Removed. The source was the IPCC report later cited, but quote was unnecessary. Femke (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN231: ILO News is not an author

  Removed. Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Szarka: is that publisher alphabetization per the source?

  I don't understand the question. Femke (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Done. Changed "MacMillan" to "Macmillan". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Smil 2017a: we don't need to identify what the publisher is an imprint of, but if you're doing so, should do so consistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Removed (no idea what an imprint is tbf). Femke (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria I think v2 issues have all been addressed. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 October 2021 [76].

---

Prison education

Nominator(s): Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about education within the prison system. I first nominated this article back in 2018, and have address the issues raised at that FAC, notably the lack of coverage in the History section towards Africa and South America. However, as I noted at the first FAC, gaps remain in that section, as the history of prison education in countries is rarely written about. For example, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia; in it the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. Coverage in developing nations in particular is often non-existent. What's in that section is a summary of all the sources myself and other editors could find. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

File:Educator Ange Leech at Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison March 2019 credit Tom Joyner.jpg is the only fishy photo. The uploader has many photos deleted. This one is small and lacks OTRS or EXIF data, leading me to doubt that he is the creator of it. Also, I am concerned about the heavy use of quoteboxes in the article. Inevitably they end up emphasizing some viewpoints above others by giving them extra space and setting them off. (t · c) buidhe 23:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Buidhe: He isn't the creator of it. As per both the title and the summary at the file, the photo was taken by journalist Tom Joyner. User:The Little Platoon, who uploaded the file, told me he received written permission from Tom Joyner to upload the photos under a creative commons licence. What do we need to do to have the image accepted?

Also three of the four quoteboxes are given for things that I could not find opposing views for. The first quotebox in the Asian history is the opinion of the Chinese government that crime is often caused by a lack of education; I did not find any material that opposed this view in Asia. The second quote box is from a prisoner emphasizing why it is difficult to study in prison; I did not find a single prisoner stating it is too easy to study in prison. The third quote box is the opinion of the United Nations; I think that is notable and no organisation that large has spoken out against prison education. The only quotebox for which opposing views really exists is the final one, as there are indeed also politicians opposed to prison education. In this case the quote's purpose is to explain in greater detail the referenced quote in the prose regarding media induced fears. Considering due weight with respect to the amount of literature supporting the argument for prison education rather than opposing it, I think this single quote is appropriate. I do note the article does close with a quote from a politician opposing prison education for balance though. I don't understand what you mean by 'setting them off'. Can you explain more about why each of the four quotes is a problem? Damien Linnane (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Usually if you are uploading images not in the public domain that someone else has created, one of two things are required: 1) OTRS permission or 2) an external website where the images are marked as being available under a free license. See c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team.

I believe that quoteboxes often give rise to an undue weight problem, and frankly I don't see how these quotes add much to the encyclopedia value of the article to begin with. Either they should be covered in the article text (preferably paraphrased to avoid overlong quotations) or they just aren't relevant. I am far from the only editor who believes that the quotebox template should be generally avoided in article space—it says so in the template documentation. (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the process of trying to get OTRS permission. I'm happy for the image to remain removed until it is obtained.

Regarding the quotes I guess we just have a difference of opinion regarding style and what adds value to an article. I can appreciate four quotes might be a bit much though. Having read back over these quotes I think the United Nations one adds the least value to the article. I'm removing it now. Thanks for the image review btw. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

Addressed comments

For this part, Sweden is considered to be a pioneer in the field., could you attribute in the prose who considers Sweden to be a pioneer? I think I originally derived that sentence from my summary of the book Nordic Prison Education: A Lifelong Learning Perspective, which is referenced at the end of the following sentence, though doesn't explicitly use that term. I've since found and added an inline citation to an academic article that explicitly calls them a "pioneer" in the field though. Neither the journal nor the author have articles on Wikipedia, so I don't really see much point in naming them in the prose essentially it will just be a name nobody has heard of. Let me know if you think it needs to be better clarified to the reader somehow though. That does make sense to me. Since this sentence has a citation, readers could look at that for further information. I see your point that putting this information into the prose could lead to some awkwardness so I think you are correct here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC) At the risk of sounding incredibly foolish, could you link chaplain in this part, In the United States, prisoners were given religious instruction by chaplains, as I am honestly unfamiliar with this concept? Also, do you think a link for religious instruction would be beneficial? Done. I am slightly confused by this part, farming skills at the countries agricultural prisons. Shouldn't it be the country's agricultural prisons instead? Fixed. This may be silly or unnecessary, but for this part, Other types of vocational training, such as certain forms of woodwork, would it be worthwhile to add a link for woodworking for readers who may want to learn more about this practice? Woodworking is actually mentioned earlier in the history section, so I've now linked it at its first mention there. Thank you for linking this on the first instance. Apologies for missing the first instance. It does remind me of how American schools used to have shop classes, but when I got to high school, it was not a thing anymore due to safety issues (and I am assuming other reasons as well). I think this is why I found the woodworking mentions to be interesting. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC) For this part, introduced a bill entitled the Kids Before Cons Act, should the bill be in italics? I cannot remember the last time I saw a bill title so I am uncertain about how it should be represented. Looking at other articles that mention bills, they don't seem to be italicised. I would remove the italics. From my understanding, the bill title is just presented as Kids Before Cons Act without any other stylizations. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Meant to do this earlier. It's done now though. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I have a question about this sentence: A prison educational program created by Bard College has a recidivism rate of 4% for people who only attended the course and 2.5% for those who completed it. Would it be possible to include a link to the Bard Prison Initiative article? Sure, that's a much better link. Thanks for suggesting it. For this part, A prison education program in Ukraine, I do not think Ukraine should be linked as it is a pretty major country that I would imagine most readers would be familiar with, and I do not think countries are generally linked in the article. Agreed. Removed. Here are my comments so far. I hope they are helpful. I will read through the article again once everything has been addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Aoba47. Thanks so much for your comments. I've made replies to everything. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again later in the week. I have my birthday tomorrow so I will be off Wikipedia then, but I will return to this before the end of the week. I do not think I will find anything else (prose-wise as that is the focus of my review), but I want to make sure to thoroughly look through the article to help with your FAC as much as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks so much Aoba47. Hope you have a great birthday tomorrow! Damien Linnane (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your patience with my review. The prose looks good to me. I just have a quick question below: Was there any coverage on how COVID-19 affected prison education? COVID has severely impacted education in general (and there is even a separate Wikipedia article about it), so I would imagine there would be discussions on the challenges that prison education programs have and are currently facing because of the pandemic. @Aoba47: You know I never thought to look at that, but mentioning how the pandemic impacted prison education was a great suggestion, so thanks. I've just added a paragraph on the pandemic to the Challenges section. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for adding this to the article. I honestly only thought about this today while I was reading about how COVID is affecting the school system in my area (and just for some context with that, I live in Florida). You have done a very good job with finding citations for this and integrating this information into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Other than that, the article looks good to me. I am not expert in this matter. Once my above question has been answered, I will support this FAC for promotion. I hope you are having a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891

• " The first major education program aimed at rehabilitating prisoners was launched in 1876. Zebulon Brockway, the superintendent of Elmira Reformatory in New York, is credited as being the first to implement such a program." saying "the first...the first" in such quick succession feels kind of redundant. Can this be rephrased-- perhaps the sentences combined?

  Reworded.

• "from 70 to four" MOS:NUMNOTES

  Fixed.

• " in South America in comparison to the Western world" I wonder if you could pick a better phrase than "western world" because I don't think it's universally agreed upon most of SA isn't 'western'-- cf. File:Western World Latin America torn countries.png

  Changed to "Europe and North America".

• The Dominican Republic is a North American nation (?)

  I think you meant to point out that I accidentally put it in the South American category. My mistake. I've since decided to create a separate section for the Caribbean.

• Do you have the sourcing to generally add sentences like "other nations on this continent do not widely offer prison education"? I think that might be useful to increasing a feel of comprehensiveness

  Are you referring to the fact that, as per the nomination intro, there are gaps in the literature in the history section? Unfortuantely I didn't find any other sources that explicitly said other countries on a continent didn't offer prison education.

• No mention of india? https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S2055-364120210000037005/full/html, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1985-26360-001

  I've added a paragraph on the country. Thanks for finding the sources! The one that was the most helpful was only written recently, after I wrote this article.

• I'm not convinced that the listing of seemingly random surveys in a few countries is really necessary-- couldn't those citation simply back up the first sentence "People in prison systems worldwide are consistently less educated than the general population. " and have that be enough?

  Yeah that's a good point. It may seem random, but that's the statistics for every country that I could find. The paragraph just grew slowly over time as I found new countries to add. I've decided to relocate this information to the 'Reasons' sub-section as a single sentence.

Working through... The prose is in general in very good shape, I'll probably have mostly minor comments. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your comments Eddie891, I really appreciate it. I'll ping you again when I finish with the India sources, though feel free to make more comments in the meantime. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I've read the sources on India and have built a new paragraph accordingly. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

" seven out of ten inmates in the US will have re-offended and half will be back in prison" Can you rephrase this so it doesn't appear to be making predictions as to what prisoners will definitely do in the future (that has already passed)

Done.

I wonder if sources like https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6743246/ has any more up-to-date recidivism rates?

Looking at that table there's only one updated figure for the countries I've already cited, but it's only by one year and they count the rate using a different method so I'd prefer to keep the figure I currently have. It is excellent to get all the latest available figures in one place though. I'm considering replacing the current format where I give the rates from individual countries with a single-sentence summary based on table three at that source, along the lines of 'As of 2020, the latest available data for re-offending across 15 countries after two years was X%, with the highest figure being Denmark at 63% (2013) and the lowest being Norway with 20% (2005)'. What do you think of that?

@Eddie891: I've overhauled the recidivism sub-section. I think it's much better now. Let me know what you think. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I like that better, too, thanks Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

while in custody had only a 27.2% chance of re-offending" I'm not sure that this is how you want to use 'chance'-- it's not like re-offending is something that randomly happens to people.

Done. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

perhaps the costs in 'cost' should be emphasized to be averages? I doubt each prisoner is the same expense, if that makes sense...

Done.

do you have a year for the washington state institute study?

Added.

Is the 2013 forbes article by Glenn C. Altschuler and David J. Skorton? Given they both have links, it might be more powerful to attribute their quote to them, if that's the case

Hey great find! Thanks. I've done this now.

"it is compulsory for inmates in South Africa to complete at least Grade 9 of schooling" to me, this almost sounds like the inmates cannot be released uuntil they have completed that much schooling-- is that the case?

Based on my research I would assume not, though maybe in South Africa things are completely different. The source doesn't explicitly say, though sources I've read on other countries don't delay an inmates release if they happen to fail their compulsory education classes.

I think that's just about it on prose from me... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Eddie891, I've replied to all your points. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses, I'm satisfied to support on prose. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Homeostasis07

I was going to review this a week or so ago, but didn't want to step on Eddie's toes, as they seemed to be raising the same issues I would've brought up. Having re-read the article at this point, I see no further issues to raise. The prose is clear and engaging, and the sourcing seems immaculate to me (almost entirely academic sources). Happy to support. Kudos on all the hard work Damien. Hope this works out for you. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 19:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review from Amakuru - Pass

General

• Is there a reason why some book sources are given inline, while others are cited to a bibliography?

  I think I cited books in the bibliography if I used them more than once, so as to be able to use the SFN template to specify the page number, which I thought looked cleaner than pasting the entire source again but with a different page number. Let me know if you want all of them moved to the bibliography section regardless of whether they are only cited once. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Some archived websites have retrieval dates, e.g. 24, 163 while others do not, e.g. 19, 21, 22. Make consistent.
• 20: This seems to cite the Social Science Research Network as a publisher, whereas it should I think be cited to the University of Massachusetts Law Review journal, volume 11
• 21: Citing to "Board, The Editorial" is a bit odd, as this is not a human forename and surname. Suggest either "The Editorial Board", or even omit altogether as it's not particularly informative and can be treated like any other article which lacks a specific author.
• 19 & 22: The source has them as "Erica L." and "David J." but the middle initial is not given here; initially I assumed you were omitting them all, but then 35 has an "Alison J."; so some checking is needed for consistency

  I fixed the ones you mentioned. I'll go through later and search for others. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 23: UNESCO is a publisher rather than a work, so probably shouldn't be italicised
• 28: Has author names that can be included: Gabriel Zinny and Diego Gorgal
• 29 & 30: Labelling this as "DiTella" is somewhat confusing, given that the authors in the listed source are "Alzúa, María Laura; Rodriguez, Catherine; Villa, Edgar". I'd prefer to give those authors in the short cite rather than the editor, unless there's a good reason. (Also note that DiTella should have a space in it).
• 30: Is there a reason why the adjacent pages are separated with a , rather than a – ?

  Nope, just an oversight. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 31: dead link
• 39 - it says "Source AAP" at the bottom, so you might want to include an agency = [[Australian Associated Press]] parameter
• 40 - effectively a deadlink; flip to use the archived version
• 42 - link redirects
• 46 - has a JSTOR available [77]
• 57 - the date on the source is 29 September not 27 September
• 62 - "Experiences from Central Asia, South America, North Africa and Europe" is given in italics as if it's a work/website, but in fact it's just a sub-title. Suggest DVV International as the publisher
• 63 - [78] gives page numbers of 525-532
• 72 - needs a publisher of some sort, e.g. Australian Government Productivity Commission
• 74 - seven different pages given, to cover two sentences. Seems a bit too broad, is there a reason for this?

  Yes. The information on different countries is given in different chapters. So pages 36-37 cover education for prisoners on remand in Denmark, while pages 52-53 cover the same topic for Finland, etc. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 75 - what does the "4769608639" at the end refer to?

  Honestly I don't remember. Removed. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• 77 - dead link
• 70 & 79 - same source
• 81 - it looks like ASCILITE is the publisher, while "Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in the Use of Educational Technologies in Tertiary Education" or something is the work
• 82 - authors Amy Antonio and Helen Farley
• 84 - "nternational Journal of Asian Social Science" - missing an I
• 86 - dead link

Pausing there for now; will continue with this later, and then add spot checks and other checks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Amakuru. Thanks so much for the amount of effort you've put into this. To be honest I'm a bit embarrassed about the number of flaws. Anyway, I've either addressed everything above, or made a reply. Rather than clogging up the page by replying 'Done' to every item above I'm just replying to the questions and things that might not be resolved yet. Also I removed source [79] to address your concern, so keep in mind that sources you listed above after that are now one number out of the order you gave them. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Damien Linnane: no worries, to be honest most of these are extremely nitpicking minor issues anyway... I initially wasn't even expecting to see anything because they all looked quite well done at first glance! Anyway, thanks for the replies and I'll plough on with the rest. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

(New numbers follow, as of this version).

• 90 - Ministry of Justice probably doesn't need italics
• 95 - has a JSTOR available
• 96 - could give a publisher, which is either Triple J or Australian Broadcasting Corporation
• 98 - as far as I can tell this has a journal (Frontiers in Communication), a volume=6 and a DOI and ISSN number
• 100 - a DOI is available
• 101 - the link provided does not land you at the top of the page, but instead at reference 13 for some reason
• 103 - although the title says 2009, I think the actual publication date is 2010
• 104 - the page number says 2010, but the document only has 33 pages. Assume this is a typo with a year inserted instead of a page number.
• 109 - I'd imagine American Enterprise Institute is a publisher rather than a work, so not italics
• 110 - I'm not a major fan of wide page ranges, even in journal articles, but it seems this is an exception to others in using a single page number rather than the range of the whole article (4–17)

  I don't understand what the problem is. Presumably, all the information cited here is on one page, whereas in others, a topic might be covered in detail over several. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

  @Damien Linnane: I'm alluding to the topic that was discussed here: Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources/Archive_51#Do_cites_to_journal_articles_need_specific_page_numbers_for_each_fact?. As you probably know, journal articles typically come with a page range, which denotes the pages of the parent journal on which the article in question resides. Furthermore, this page range often forms an integral part of the citation for that article. The problem then, is that many editors like to use the pages=nn parameter of {{cite journal}} to show that article page range. However, it is also IMHO of even greater importance, on Wikipedia at least, for specific facts to point to specific pages where the exact information conveyed is to be found. So do we use the pages parameter for for the first use, or for the second? Ideally there would be a separate parameter for each. Anyway, what I was alluding to above is that in ref 110 I believe you have pinpointed a specific page, while in other cases you've put the page range of the whole journal article. On reflection I'd say don't change anything, however, because asking for a broader range would be cutting off my nose to spite my face, given that I don't agree with that line! Anyway, I'll be back for the spot checks later this evening hopefully. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• 112 - don't really need to say "-Unesco" in the title, that's not what the top of the document says anyway
• 113 - The Atlantic could be linked, although this is the second occurrence so perhaps you have chosen not to. Make sure you're consistent one way or the other with that, anyway.
• 114 - dead link
• 118 - minor point, but most versions I'm seeing don't have a space before (er)
• 126 - could link to the more specific BBC News, and I also don't think this is an italics one
• 26 - (sorry, jumping back) - ditto BBC News, also this one is marked as dead when it's actually still live
• 132 - Correctional Service of Canada probably shouldn't be italicised
• 133 - ditto
• 135 - author is Lorna Knowles. And is ABC News a publisher?
• 138 & 139 - Washington State Institute for Public Policy italics? (also note that you linked this both times, so see my note at ref 113 above)
• 141 - dead link; and UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research, Department of Policy italics; and we have a page on this institution at UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs
• 143 - no link to The Nation? Also, wrong year; should be 2015 not 2013
• 145 - check italics again
• 150 - BBC News not italic
• 151 - dead link
• 158 - perhaps Ministry of Justice rather than gov.uk? Not sure actually.
• 160 - issue=1
• 162 - 07/12/2017 most likely means December 7, as this is a European publication. In US format it would be July 12, but either way it can't be December 12!
• 163 & 164 - needs a publisher, as without the link it would be hard to decipher what this is. Productivity Commission or something.
• 166 - this one does say Productivity Commission (in italics which it probably shouldn't be), but now doesn't mention Report on Government Services
• 169 - dead link
• 170 - ditto
• 172 - italics

(from the bibliography)

• Alzua - most book titles are in italics but this one isn't; any reason?

  The book title is in italics. It's the chapter title that isn't. I suppose what looks out of place is that I've external linked the chapter title, not the book title. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Bowdon - you seem to have missed out author Russell G. Carpenter
• International Prison Commission - the title page lists Samuel J. Barrows in some sort of role here; perhaps an editor, given that the individual chapters all have authors
• Mariner, James; Cavallaro, Michael - not sure where these names come from, but the link says the authors are Mariner, Joanne and Cavallaro, James
• Norval, Morris - are you sure this shouldn't be "Morris, Norval"? Also, you've missed out David J. Rothman

  Turns out Rothman is the sole author and also one of the two editors (alongside Morris). I've removed editors entirely and just placed Rothman as the author. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nordic Council of Ministers - I don't think "Business & Economic" really belongs here; that's the "subject" that Google Books has assigned to this, rather than a publisher name
• Ramsland and Sampson - all other books here have a Google Books link, but not these two. Any reason?

  Just an oversight I guess. Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Phew, that's about it! I'll come back tomorrow hopefully with a few spot checks, and double check that all the sources are reliable. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Amakuru. As per last time I've only replied to questions and things that may not be fixed yet. Damien Linnane (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru ? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah shoot, this one had slipped my mind. I'll finish it off tomorrow. Sorry!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot checks

(now looking at this version)

• 2 - mostly checks out, although the book says that the education was only mandatory for those under 35, a detail not mentioned in the article.
• 3 - checks out.
• 10 - checks out.
• 11 - checks out.
• 28 - checks out.
• 31 - checks out (for all points).
• 48 - checks out.
• 169 - checks out.
• 172 - checks out.

Given all the above, I'm satisfied that the sourcing is accurate, the fixes you've done look good, and I'm not seeing any dubious or unreliable sources. Happy to pass. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your review, I really appreciate it. I've updated the article to mention the under 35 issue. Damien Linnane (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment by GMG

• I shouldn't be considered a neutral reviewer, since I was pretty heavily involved in the last FAC, and I've written a fair share of the article. I'd only say that I'm still fairly satisfied that many of the content issues raised previously are an artifact of having a very broad topic, and not of an article being insufficiently comprehensive in the format of an encyclopedia, rather than a book. GMG^talk 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Noswall59

I commend the good work that has gone into this, but I'm concerned about comprehensiveness. The history section is patchy. The subsection on Europe includes relatively detailed discussions of the Nordic countries, the UK and the Soviet Union but nothing on the Germany, Benelux, Austria, Eastern Europe and the Balkans; there is also nothing on the Mediterranean states like Spain, Italy and Greece. The North American, Caribbean and Latin American material seem fine to me either because they cover everywhere (North America) or talk in general terms with some illustrative examples or exceptions. Oceania mentions nothing about the various Pacific island states and Asia focuses on China, Japan and India but nowhere else.

I recognise, of course, that we can't just have histories of every country in this article, but it seems odd to focus in depth on a few in one continent but make no mention of the rest or any general comments, as in the sections on Europe and Asia. There's also very little in this article on illiteracy specifically, but that has often been a major part of prison education programmes and there's a lot of scholarship on it. Again, we don't need to cover everything here; Illiteracy in prison populations could be its own article, as could Education programmes for illiterate prisoners (or something like that). But I think some mention other than just a couple of country-specific statistics is probably called for. I will say that I am very busy offline right now, so I don't think I will carry out a full review of this article; these are just meant to be points on comprehensiveness. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC).

@Noswall59: Thanks for your comments. The article recently had a lot of country specific information on literacy rates (see the first paragraph of the 'Literacy rates and available programs' section in this version here [79]), though I was actually asked to replace this with a single sentence saying prisoners were less literate in general in order to address the concerns of another reviewer. I agree with that reviewer that the current summary is much better.

I've always had the same overarching problem with the history section. While there is information available on the current state of prison education in many countries (though far from all of them), very few sources exist on the history of prison education. As I mentioned in the lead of this nomination, I could only find one book written about the history of prison education in Australia, and the author explicitly said his motivation for writing it was that nobody else had ever tried to cover the subject. If only one source exists on prison education in a developed and wealthy nation like Australia, it's easy to imagine why there won't be sources on the history of prison education on the much smaller developing Pacific island nations near it. Speaking from years of research in the field, smaller developing nations are unlikely to have prison education at all, let alone a history on the subject worth writing about. Of course, I don't think I'd have too much trouble finding more coverage for at least somewhere in Europe. I simply stopped writing that section once it reached a size that was already larger than most of the other continents. I was concerned about issues of due weight and focus on the Western world, conscious of the fact the article is already at such as large size, and it's a difficult subject to to summarise because as you note, I cannot add information on every country. But if I found some more coverage in Europe and Asia, would that address any resistance you had to the article being promoted? Damien Linnane (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Damien Linnane. Thanks for your response. Firstly, on due weight, I completely understand your concerns. My issue was that it seemed odd to have a few countries singled out in Europe especially; if you could find a source which offers a more general picture across Europe or part of Europe, or even just signpost the development in some other major countries, like Spain, Italy, Germany, then that would make a big difference to reducing the patchy feel. I wonder whether former Soviet Bloc countries had similar historical experiences of prison education - if so, that might make it easy to generalise there. It really doesn't need much, a few sentences really. As for illiteracy, you're absolutely right to have reduced the country-specific stats, but I more meant it's implications for pedagogy. In fact, I notice that there isn't a section about pedagogy (as in, theories and research on best-practices, e.g.), perhaps that's worth looking into? —Noswall59 (talk) 11:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC).

@Noswall59: I've expanded on the history of Italy, Spain and Russia. Let me know what you think so far, and if you think it still needs more. I'll try and find the time to look into pedagogy tomorrow. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 16:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@Noswall59: I've added a paragraph on pedagogy to the beginning of the 'Challenges' section. Let me know if you have any ongoing concerns. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement. I actually don't have a working knowledge of the topic, so it's difficult to judge whether there are particular approaches or theories which deserve a mention – there are a number of books on the topic. Nevertheless, it probably needs its own article, where such discussion ought to take place; perhaps a red link would is in order. If you feel confident that you've summarised the general contours of the literature, then that's probably enough. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I do feel like those were good improvements. Turns out pedagogy is mostly the same as outside prison, with the caveat of prison restrictions getting in the way, but that's still interesting to read about. Anyway thanks for your input. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Noswall59, are you content with the changes made? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild yes, with the caveat that I’m no expert. –Noswall59 (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC).

Coord query

@FAC coordinators: Image and source reviews pass, three supports, and two additional commentators who appear to not have any outstanding concerns. Are we good to go or do we need another review? Damien Linnane (talk) 14:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• References: What system are you using to render the titles of works in title case or not?

@Gog the Mild: Typically I just mirror whatever format the title of the reference itself uses, but to be honest I didn't really think about it much. I've never been asked that on Wikipedia before, even at FAC. Would you like me to pick a format and make everything consistent, regardless of what format the title of the actual source is? 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cites 35 and 80 contain p/pp errors. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Really?! Does no one read criterion 2c "consistently formatted inline citations"? Yes please; if you could adjust them all to a consistent format that would be good. I would suggest putting them all into title case, but it is your call. (Grandma and eggs bit: In edit mode do a cntl-F search for "title=" and run through the 149 results.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Done. Incidentally I always thought consistency just meant consistent template and date formatting, but I'll include case from now on as well. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I dunno what was in the mind of the drafter, but I think you see my point. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Ref 80 was literally the last reference I added to address the last reviewers concern, after the source check was done. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Cite 81 is malformed. Possibly you need to decide which single year it was published in. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 October 2021 [80].

---

Operation Sandwedge

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Taking another run with this one, which was last at FAC back in January 2016. At that time it was only half the length it is now, reflecting the paucity of sources available when I was writing it, but some tremendous help from the late Brianboulton identified several texts which contributed to a much more comprehensive overview of a project which never happened. Sandwedge is a minor footnote in the grand scheme of the Watergate affair, but an interesting one, as it inevitably gives rises to the question of "what if". I hope whether any of you take the time to review this or not you at least find it an interesting entry in political history, a quaint reminder of a time when crime in public office was wrong. A lot of the sourcing used is offline but if anyone needs to conduct a source review on these I should be able to access all the print sources again to accommodate this. Thanks in advance to anyone having a look at it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 21:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – Pass

• Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 22:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Iazyges

• Going to have to review this as Nixon is my favorite president, will start as soon as I finish my current GA review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Lede

Suggest expanding the lede slightly, perhaps with more information regarding H. R. Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and Jack Caulfield's positions, as well as G. Gordon Liddy.

Background

• "defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote." suggest "defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President, by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote."
• "by a margin of less than 118,000 votes", it may be worth mentioning somewhere that the actual overall vote count doesn't (technically) matter because of the electoral college, but that several states, such as Illinois, were narrowly lost, which ultimately lost him the election.
• It may also be worth mentioning there was some considerable belief of voter fraud in Illinois and Texas, in the 1960 election, with several of Nixon's 1972 aides having argued it at the time.
• "Nixon's initial election bid had already involved the planting of rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy" suggest "Nixon's initial election bid had already involved planting rumors and false information about his opponents as a dedicated strategy" for simplicity.

Planned activities

• "officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General." may be worth noting that he was a leading candidate for 1968 election before his assassination, perhaps, "officials who had served under Robert F. Kennedy, a Democrat and former Attorney General, who had been the leading Democratic candidate in the 1968 primaries before his assasination."
• "investigators and officials of Inland Revenue," really? The British one? Is there any known reason for crossing the pond, and not getting people from the IRS?
• "Mitchell had served as Attorney General under Nixon's first term" suggest changing "under" to "during"

Aftermath

• Article definitely needs to mention that Nixon had to resign because of Watergate.
• That is all of my suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look at this. I've implemented the majority of the changes mentioned; the only thing not yet addressed is the information concerned the voting margins and accusations of fraud in the 1960 election—I know that White's Breach of Faith details this and I want to be able to accurately quote the figures he presents, but I'm currently moving home and the book is elsewhere today, so this will be added when I have the source in front of me. Otherwise this should demonstrate the changes made. (Also of note, today is when I first learnt, as a European, that "IRS" does not stand for "Inland Revenue Service". Every day's a school day). 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits made look good; I will say that probably most Americans couldn't actually tell you what IRS stands for with certainty. Unfortunately, the pain of my tax accounting course will never leave me. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've now added the information about 1960 more specifically, including the particularly fine margins in two states, along with an attributed mention of electoral fraud. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh

Very interesting article. This is my first FA review, so fell free to ignore any suggestion which you don't find helpful.

• Do we really need a specific image size in the info-box (270)?

  Apparently not, I've removed it.

• ""The operation was planned to help Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign."" – suggesting to red-link "1972 re-election campaign" to Richard Nixon 1972 presidential campaign, rather than linking it to the election page.

  I would prefer at present to retain the current link just because the target is so well-written; I have no issues with a relevant red link but not over a viable in-depth article. It's an easy switch if the article is ever created to the same standard though.

• ""but rivals within Nixon's own party."" – The lead doesn't tell which party Nixon is in.

  Added

• ""which detailed a plan to break into Democratic Party offices in the Watergate complex. Liddy's plan eventually led to the downfall of Nixon's presidency, "" – both "break into Democratic Party offices" and "downfall of Nixon's presidency" ultimately redirect to the same page.

  Good catch; the duplicate link tool wasn't picking this up.

• ""In 1968, Richard Nixon, the United States Republican Party nominee"" – Is "United States" really needed? It should be phrased something like "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party's nominee"

  Trimmed it; this is what happens when you let a euro write about US politics

• ""this position granted"" → "a position which granted"

  Got it

• ""during Nixon's successful bid for the vice-presidency under Dwight D. Eisenhower"" – I won't say that Nixon was under Eisenhower. They both campaigned as a ticket for re-election in 1956.

  I've rephrased it; I would have thought a vice-president always served under a president but now it's just "as Dwight D. Eisenhower's vice-president" to avoid that.

• ""Nixon's initial election bid"" → "re-election bid"

  Got it

• ""$511,000"" – suggesting to use Template:inflation

  I've added this template with the "equivalent to" output to all the major dollar amounts in the article now

• Attorney General is linked twice in the prose.

  Another one the tool hadn't flagged due to a redirect, pared the second one out

• Link Republican National Convention

  Added to first mention,

• ""congressman for California"" → "congressman from California"

  Although McCloskey was from California, this is to show he was the representative for California (honestly not sure how often a representative tends to stand for a state other than their home but it doesn't feel like they're one and same)

  Well, "congressman from California" would also imply that he represents California. (is mentioning the state important)? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• ""Gemstone was an umbrella term ...... rival political campaigns" – too long sentence

  I've removed the em dash and split this into two sentences.

• Its notable to mention that Nixon was the first and only president to resign.

  Added a mention of it, cited to Nixon's biography on the US Senate website; if this needs something further I could dig out one of the more recent books but obviously the older the cite is the more date it looks for a fact intended to remain present to today.

• Committee for the Re-Election of the President already linked in the prose. No need for it to be in the "See also" section.

  Gone.

• Any book/work for further reading?

  None that haven't been used already; there's no shortage of output on Watergate as a whole but a paucity on the story that didn't happen.

  Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Rest, most seems fine to me. It would be much appreciated if you could review this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at this; I've addressed your points above and all changes related to them can be seen here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X – I have made a minor edit. Rest all seems fine to me, and I support this article for promotion as a featured article. Any comments here would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

• You link Vietnam opposition twice in the lead, and the second mention feels redundant (it comes very shortly after the first and is worded almost identically)
• Not sure the link on "New York police officer" adds much, and is a bit of an Easter egg.
• at this time he was Nixon's domestic affairs assistant at what time?
• Ehrlichman was the one who had initially hired Caulfield in 1969 "was the one who" is redundant
• Ehrlichman was the one who had initially hired Caulfield in 1969; Ehrlichman intended for Caulfield to conduct private investigations while undercover as a private sector employee, it was Caulfield who insisted on working from the White House bit of a mouthful, with a semicolon and a comma splice in the mix. The easiest solution is to replace the semicolon with a full stop, and the comma with a semicolon.
• however Caulfield intimated privately that it would also "however" implies a contradiction whereas "also" implies an agreement. Suggest replacing "however" with "although" or similar.
• "private investigator" is linked on the third use of the term in the body
• Strachan, Dean and other staff members were frustrated "however" again (see WP:WTA)
• That October, a meeting concerning Sandwedge Which October? This is the start of a new section.
• a meeting concerning Sandwedge was arranged Can we rephrase this to use the active voice?
• Another factor in Caulfield's removal from the helm was the belief of several White House officials, including Dean, that Caulfield's Irish-American, non-college educated background was at odds that's a lot of commas. Suggest dashes for "including Dean". And this use of "non-college-educated" is one compound adjective and needs hyphens between all parts.
• Liddy's initial draft of Operation Gemstone was deemed active voice is preferable again
• Likewise was made by Dean in January 1972
• tried for various crimes, with 48 of these This use of ", with" is ungrammatical as a way of joining clauses. You could replace it with a semicolon or split it into two sentences or restructure the whole sentence.
• "the most monumental of the Nixon Presidency" You need a reference straight after a direct quote.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:58, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for having a look at this. I think I've gotten everything here although if you want to cast an eye over the changes to be sure, especially with active voice concerns, just let me know if anything needs further work. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Harry, how is this looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Apologies for not returning to this sooner. The day job is keeping me occupied! I'm happy with the responses to my comments. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• FN1: this link works, but is it the page that you're meaning to cite?

  It was not, seems like they have rearranged the site a little since it was used. I've updated the link although it's far from vital--the actual percentages are given in the Black source, the Electrical College was just to provide a governmental source for the winner in addition to the more precise breakdown in the book.

• Knight is listed at the publisher site as the editor of that work rather than the author. Do individual entries have authors?

  They don't, although it's structured like an encyclopaedia or dictionary with alphabetical entries, there's only an editor (Knight) and three "associate editors" (Robert Alan Goldberg, Jeffrey L Pasley, and Larry Schweikart) credited for it. Is the best option here to switch the field to credit Knight as editor, then?

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• How are you ordering References? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  Alphabetical by author (then by year for Genovese who has two entries) with the House Committee listed after individual authors. Open to changing this if you think the last one should be alphabetised like a name.

  I think if you're treating the committee as an author, it would make sense to alphabetize it with the other authors. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Responded above, thank you for looking at this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

  United States House Committee on the Judiciary alphabetised under "U"; Knight updated to list as editor. I'm noticing now that this displays the editor credit differently for these two entries, in brackets for the Committee and without brackets for Knight. If these should match, I'm not sure how to achieve it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  That's... odd. Perhaps raise it at Help talk:CS1? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've tried playing around with it to no avail, I've left a message at the help page asking if anyone can figure it out. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Now solved. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Spot-checks – Pass

Version checked — this

• Ref#2 – The book specifies "43.4 percent to 42.7 percent", so OK (link)
• Ref#3 – OK (link)
• Ref#7 – OK (link)
• Ref#13 – OK (link)
• Ref#15 – OK (remaining part supported by Ref#16) (link)
• Ref#16 – OK for remaining claim of that sentence, which isn't supported by Ref#15 (link)
• Ref#21 – OK (link)
• Ref#25 – OK (link)
• Ref#31 – OK (link)

Overall, pass on spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review, modern American politics has always interested me so I can't really go past this one...

• Copyedited so pls let me know any probs, otherwise prose, detail (appropriately succinct given it's really a footnote to Watergate), tone and structure seem fine.
• I'll take Buidhe's and Nikki's image and source reviews as read.
• One thought: In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party nominee, won the presidential election, defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President, by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote -- My understanding is that the Electoral College decides the election, not the popular vote (as witness Trump 2016), so is it really accurate to say the election was won by seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote? Perhaps with a margin of seven-tenths of a percent of the popular vote would be closer to the mark. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sure, I'm happy to rephrase this. The popular vote doesn't decide the winner, you're correct, but the margin being so fine is contextually important as the section expands upon. How does "In 1968, Richard Nixon, the Republican Party nominee, won the presidential election, defeating Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the incumbent Vice President. Nixon's margin of victory in the popular vote was seven-tenths of a percent." sound? Splitting it into two sentences should hopefully provide the necessary separation that these are two different facts. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

  Sure that works for me. I agree that even though the Electoral College in both 1960 and 1968 was very clear, the narrow popular margin is what everyone focusses on, so I think it's reasonable for this article to do that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've made the change. It's an interesting election in that it shows how strange the College is--the "official" result doesn't look close at all but small margins in large states like Texas mean a swing of a relatively small number of voters would have had big differences in that final College tally; less than five thousand votes for Humphrey in Illinois would have been a 52-point swing for example. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 00:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  Fair point -- small percentages can make a big difference in the end. Anyway change looks good, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 October 2021 [81].

---

Sound and Vision

Nominator(s): – zmbro _(talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about...the David Bowie song "Sound and Vision", a very oddly structured song that is also one of his finest. It came off the divisive Low, and surprised RCA Records by being a surprise hit in the UK (peaking at number three). Since its GA promotion back in May, I've continued expanding it, using other FAs such as New Romantics (song) as a basis. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns you might have. :-) – zmbro _(talk) 16:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Images are either hosted on commons with appropriate licensing or have appropriate fair use rationale. Looks good here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• I am uncertain about using a quote in the lead as done in this part, Regarded as the closest to a "conventional pop song" on Low, as I am uncertain if a clearer attribution would be needed to clarify who regarded the song this way.

• It's regarded this way by his biographers. Would it be better to attribute this? The genre for this one is a little weird as I haven't been able to find someone classifying it under a definitive genre. People have classified Low as a whole as art rock, but that doesn't really suffice here. In my opinion, the song is 100% art pop, but again, I can't put that for obvious reasons. There are a few attributions for disco in the article currently but as it stands I just have "pop" in the infobox. – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I would attribute it as it is unclear who is regarding the song in this way and I had to go down in the article itself to see where this quote was coming from. Genre is always a sticky point for a song articles, but your explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Earlier I was also able to find a source describing it as a "traditional rock song" with Krautrock and electronic elements so I added that; Also allows rock to be added to the infobox. Still very general but it helps. – zmbro _(talk) 18:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• That looks good to me. I want to read through the article one more time tomorrow to make sure I have not over-looked anything, but I will likely support this FAC at that point. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• For this part, "Like its parent album, David Bowie and Tony Visconti co-produced "Sound and Vision"", I would include the album name in the prose (i.e. Low) for clarity, and I do not think the album is linked in the body of the article (although I may have missed it).

• Yeah you're right, done.

• I have a question about the placement of File:Mary Hopkin, Bestanddeelnr 923-3712.jpg. Would it be possible to move it a little higher in the section? It cuts into the next section, at least in my browser, and there is a small amount of sandwiching occurring.

• Yeah, the same thing occurred for me – I aligned it with the text where she's introduced. I moved it up slightly; how's it look? – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• It looks good to me. Thank you for fixing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Link RCA Records in this part, "When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Record", as I believe this is the first time it is mentioned in the body of the article and the record company is currently not linked in the article.

• Done.

• I have a clarification question about this sentence: "At the time of release, one reviewer felt that none of the tracks were "single material", while another felt "Sound and Vision" was the "obvious" choice." Do we know who either of these reviewers are, and if so, would it be beneficial to include that information in the prose?

• You bet, done.

• In this part, "and the instrumental "A New Career in a New Town" as the B-side", I would link B-side just in case some readers are unfamiliar with this concept.

• Done. I've had a habit of overlinking in the past so I guess I underlinked here, haha.

• I have been there before so I completely understand that lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I do not think the quote in this part, "as the "pinnacle" of the album, is necessary", and I think it can be paraphrased without losing any meaning.

• Yeah you're right. Changed.

• This is a very nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. There are two different link, 1978 Isolar II tour and 1978 Isolar II Tour, for the same tour, and I would be consistent with one approach or the other.

• Good catch, fixed.

• I have a clarification question about this sentence: "This performance was included on Rarestonebowie (1995) and was given its first authorised release on Welcome to the Blackout (Live London '78) (2018)." I am guessing from the context of the sentence that the Rarestonebowie release was unauthorised. Is that assumption correct? Would it be possible to clarify this a little more for unfamiliar readers like myself?

• Yes that was a compilation that was issued by Bowie's former music publisher MainMan without Bowie's consultation. I'll look into clarifying this tonight (I'm sure Pegg has answers). – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Well I couldn't find the answer I was looking for so I reworded the sentence to fit the info I do have. Hope that helps. – zmbro _(talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Thank you for looking for this. I know how frustrating it can be not to find the answer you were looking for. If you ever do run across this, you can of course feel free to add this information into the article. The rewording makes sense to me and actually makes it pretty clear that Rarestonebowie was more of a publisher thing than a Bowie thing. It looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have a comment about this sentence: "Meanwhile, Hopkin's backing vocal was echoed in the American rock band Doves' 2002 single "There Goes the Fear"." I am uncertain about the "Meanwhile" transition, and I think a better word choice can be used.

• How's 'additionally'? – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think that would be a better word choice for this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed. – zmbro _(talk) 18:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• For the citations, I would move the NME link up to Citation 44 as that is the first NME citation.

• Done

• I would link Virgin Books in the Bibliography section.

• Done

Great work with the article. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and should hopefully not take too much time to address. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC based on the prose. Let me know if you have any questions about my review. I hope you are having an enjoyable weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Aoba47 Thanks very much for the comments! Queries are above. – zmbro _(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. I have left responses for everything above. I still think the quote in the lead should have some sort of attribution to make it clear that this quote is coming from David Bowie biographers, ideally in a way that is not too clunky. I just find that having a quote without any attribution or context can cause unnecessary confusion for readers who may just be looking at the lead before going into the actual article itself. Aoba47 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• Aoba47 Replies are above. Thanks again! – zmbro _(talk) 00:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far, and best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator note

This has been open for more than three weeks and is showing little sign of a consensus to support gathering. Unless it attracts further attention over the next three or four I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Realmaxxver

Making some comments soon. Here are some initial comments on the lead. Realmaxxver (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Going to ping the FAC nominator; @Zmbro:. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Realmaxxver Done. Btw you don't have to ping me every time I'm seeing the messages. – zmbro _(talk) 00:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• "Co-produced by Bowie and Tony Visconti, the song was recorded at the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville in September 1976, continuing at Hansa Studios in West Berlin from October to November." − ""Co-produced by Bowie and Tony Visconti, the song was recorded at the Château d'Hérouville in Hérouville in September 1976, then at the Hansa Studios in West Berlin from October to November.""

• Done

• " It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime; Bowie's vocals don't appear for over a minute and a half into the song." − "" It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime, while Bowie's vocals don't appear until over a minute and a half into the song.""

• Done

Writing and recording

• "Used when recording Iggy Pop's The Idiot earlier that year,[4] Bowie heavily favoured this "three-phase" process, which he would use for the rest of his career.[5]" → ""Used during the recording of Iggy Pop's The Idiot earlier that year,[4] Bowie heavily favoured this "three-phase" process, which he would use for the rest of his career.[5]""

• "According to biographer Chris O'Leary, the song began as a simple descending-by-fifths G major progression, which Bowie gave to the band, further suggesting melodies, a baseline and drum ideas." switch the position of the two words in "further suggesting"

• Realmaxxver Both done. – zmbro _(talk) 15:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Composition

• "Like the majority of the tracks on Low's first side,[12]" → ""Like the majority of the tracks on the first side of Low,[12]""

• Done

• "Bowie's biographers consider "Sound and Vision" the closest to a conventional pop song on Low.[15][16]" you can combine these two sources with the {{sfnm}} template.

• I see absolutely no purpose in doing that. These pages are already used throughout and besides, there are quite a few instances of there being two back-to-back in this section alone but what makes combining them here so special? – zmbro _(talk) 20:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Release

• "When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Records, it shocked the label.[26] Originally slated for release in November 1976, the label delayed the album's release until January 1977, fearing poor commercial performance.[27][28]" → ""When Bowie presented his 11th studio album Low to RCA Records, the label was shocked.[26] Low was originally slated for release in November 1976, the label delayed the album's release until January 1977, fearing poor commercial performance.[27][28]""

• Changed to "the label were shocked" per Brit English. I also think the next sentence is fine the way it is. – zmbro _(talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, is it necessary to include that Low was his 11th studio album here? Realmaxxver (talk) 15:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, so it doesn't appear as OR in the lead. – zmbro _(talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't understand. what citations are needed to prove that Low is his 11th studio album? Realmaxxver (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "A 12" promotional single was also released in the US in 1977. It featured a seven-minute remix of "Sound and Vision" segueing into Iggy Pop's "Sister Midnight".[33]" → ""A 12" promotional single was also released in the US in 1977, which featured a seven-minute remix of "Sound and Vision" segueing into Iggy Pop's "Sister Midnight".[33]""

• Done

• "and only managed to peak at number 69 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the US,[42] where it signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until "Let's Dance" in 1983.[33]" → ""and only managed to peak at number 69 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the US,[42] which signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until "Let's Dance" in 1983.[33]""

• I think it's fine here as we're talking about the US specifically. Also, we don't want two sentences back-to-back using "..., which..." – zmbro _(talk) 15:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The single's success in the UK confused RCA executives; it allowed Bowie to persuade them to release Iggy Pop's The Idiot, which they did in March 1977.[43]" → ""The single's success in the UK confused RCA executives, and allowed Bowie to persuade them to release Iggy Pop's The Idiot, which they did in March 1977.[43""

• Done

Critical reception

• "In a review for Low on release, Lott described "Sound and Vision" as the centrepiece of the album." → ""On release, Lott reviewed Low and described "Sound and Vision" as the centrepiece of the album.""

• Done

Live version and subsequent releases

• "Bowie also performed the song during the Sound+Vision (1990), Heathen (2002), and A Reality (2003) tours.[33] It was also performed on A&E's Live by Request on 15 June 2002.[2]" → ""Bowie also performed the song during the Sound+Vision (1990), Heathen (2002), and A Reality (2003) tours,[33] and was also performed on A&E's Live by Request on 15 June 2002.[2]""

• Done

Zmbro, finished my review. I Support this article for promotion. Realmaxxver (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I currently have a FAC on William Utermohlen, so I would like any potential comments from you, or anyone else. Realmaxxver (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tkbrett

I did the GA review for this article, so I held off to let other people add comments first. With the threat of it being archived though, I will sit right down, waiting for the gift of another great zmbro article. Tkbrett (✉) 11:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• "finished the backing track in a few takes." Can we get any more specific or is "a few" the term O'Leary uses?

• That's what he uses, unfortunately.

• "Hopkin was visiting the Château with her children when she was asked to contribute." Passive voicing, which can be fixed if we know who asked her to contribute. Do we know if it was Bowie, Visconti or Eno? Her 2011 quotation makes it sound like it was Eno, in which case we could write it as: "Hopkin was visiting the Château with her children when Eno asked her to contribute."

• Pegg actually doesn't specify, just saying "she was asked", but using her quote for reference we can say it was Eno so I fixed that.

• "Biographer Nicholas Pegg and author Peter Doggett make comparisons to Bowie's 1971 song "Quicksand", with the latter writing" replace "latter" with "Doggett".

• Done

• "Meanwhile, Perone finds that the song is a "hybrid of soul and pop", continuing the "lyrical and musical romanticism" of Young Americans (1975)." The reader may not know that Young Americans is a previous Bowie album unless they click the link, so be sure to introduce it.

• Fixed

• The song also made it to number 15 on the LyricFind U.S. chart (whatever that is) in 2016 (source). That's the only other one I could find.

• I don't even know what that is. I've not seen that mentioned on any song article nor anywhere else on this site. It seems to be more or less a lyric site, and that source shows quite a few Bowie songs "charting" in January 2016 after he died, so should we even include it? I think not. – zmbro _(talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's fine by me. I haven't been able to find anything regarding it, with no mention at WP:CHARTS. WikiProject Songs uses the word "prominent" to describe charts, and this one ain't prominent.

For other readers, note that this is not a drive-by review, as I was the GA reviewer, so I don't have much to add here. Great work again, zmbro! You've been fine tuning and improving this article a lot even since its GA review. Tkbrett (✉) 19:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for the kind words Tkbrett. All queries are fixed but I was had a concern about the last one. – zmbro _(talk) 19:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Addressed above. Happy to offer my support. Tkbrett (✉) 19:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• RCA Records later chose it as the first single from the album - this seems kinda confusing to me - we need to explain what RCA is first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed

• Hérouville - add a country. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Same for Berlin. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Both done (in lead and body)

• The song began as a simple G major chord progression, which Bowie gave to the backing musicians, writing and recording his vocals later on. - does "simple" have a specific meaning in this context? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• That's how the source words it. I'm under the assumption it means basic/not complicated. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Sound and Vision" is oddly structured - according to biographers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, although saying "according to" would be pretty derivative since the sentence starts with "Regarded by biographers..." – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• It nevertheless signaled Bowie's commercial downturn until Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• A little confused on what you mean here. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Who said this, or was this based on sales numbers? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Pegg states it directly, but it's also based on sales numbers. – zmbro _(talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• What's an overdub? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• It's a process where you record new tracks and place them over previously recorded tracks. Added a link. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• According to author Hugo Wilcken - why is the author relevent? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• So it can be properly attributed. Do you think it's not needed? – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Not that particularly, but why do we care what an author said about it?Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Removed.

• favoured this "three-phase" - who said this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Properly attributed it.

• simple descending-by-fifths G major - could we avoid the two links to each other here? - also, "simple"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Moved the "G major" link down. Other thing explained above. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Drummer Dennis Davis thought it sounded "like a Crusaders tune - and the Crusaders are? - also, do we need a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Although the source doesn't specify (that I know of), I believe he was referring to The Crusaders (jazz fusion group), as Davis came from an R&B and jazz background. Should I add a link? – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I think you'd need to. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Done

• When asked by Bowie about what it did, Visconti replied, "it fucks with the fabric of time." - seems like trivia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think so. I believe it adds context as to why they chose to use it.

• How so? It doesn't do anything to the fabric of time. Couldn't we just comment that Visconti was very positive about using it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:37, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded. – zmbro _(talk) 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• "essentially" - do we need a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Changed to "mostly"

• Hopkins quote seems like overkill. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Does it? I think that since she actually said something about it, it's good to have a quote from her. – zmbro _(talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• There's a lot of jargon terms in this article that aren't explained or linked. I've mentioned a couple already but "two-note descent", "main guitar line", "chord progression". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski Reworded and clarified a few things. – zmbro _(talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• O'Leary finds that throughout its runtime, the song assembles itself - huh? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded to give a better idea. – zmbro _(talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• ARP Solina - a what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• A type of keyboard instrument. Clarified.

• There are just so many quotes in this article, can we summarise them instead? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agreed. How's the paraphrasing look so far? – zmbro _(talk) 15:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• They offer introspection: Bowie draws the blinds, has the world shut away, and is sitting in an empty room, "waiting for the gift of sound and vision." - this isn't a sentence, and I have no idea what is trying to be said. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reworded it to try an better describe what's actually going on. – zmbro _(talk) 18:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• I feel like we are also using Wikipedia's voice to say what the tones and lyrics are like. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• That's as far as the end of composition. I'd really like the quotes to be looked at before I go any further. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• zmbro, if you have addressed Lee Vilenski's comments, I suggest that you ping them to let them know. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• Where is the genre designation in the infobox coming from? I see other genres mentioned by reviewers

• I've found his biographers consistently mention "pop" while Perone flat-out says "rock". The only other one I could see adding would be disco as that's sourced by two people, but other genres mentioned qualify as elements and not actual genres, which shouldn't go in the infobox. – zmbro _(talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest adding a footnote. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• How so? – zmbro _(talk) 13:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Explaining how this designation was arrived at - similar to what you've posted here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria How's that look? – zmbro _(talk) 12:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

• Great. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Direct quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later

• Corrected

• Blockquotes shouldn't use quotation marks

• Fixed

• "Like the majority of the tracks on the first side of Low,[12] "Sound and Vision" is classified by AllMusic's Dave Thompson as a "song fragment"." The attribution is a bit misleading here since the first portion is cited to someone other than Thompson - suggest reframing.

• Would removing the attribution work? Based on how I'm reading it, it seems like it would. – zmbro _(talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Either that or reworking in some other way. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• Removed attribution. – zmbro _(talk) 13:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

• FN36: website name shouldn't be in title parameter

• That's due to the chart template so I can't do anything about that.

• You can: you can change the template, or you can change whether you use it. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Fixed

• FN41: source gives a different date and formatting is incorrect

• Fixed

• FN48 is missing authors. Ditto FN46, check for others

• 48 lists 10 different writers; normally they'd list the writer of each blurb but they don't here so what's the solution? Nikkimaria – zmbro _(talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• You can include all of them, and if desired used the display parameters to set how many are shown. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria Done. – zmbro _(talk) 19:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Be consistent in whether you list "Staff" as author or not - compare for example FNs 55 and 47

• Resolved

• FN78-79: "none" is not needed

• Fixed

Also, not a sourcing problem, but I noticed some issues throughout with clarity of phrasing. For example, "It nevertheless signaled Bowie's commercial downturn in the US until 1983, where it peaked at number 69" - I understand from later in the article that you mean this song peaked at 69 in the US, but here that is not clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

That better? – zmbro _(talk) 15:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That example yes - suggest re-reading throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Gave it another read through and I think it looks way better. What do you think? – zmbro _(talk) 13:47, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments Placeholder by Ian

Recusing coord duties to review in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Tks for the ping, Gog...

Oddly enough, this song's never done anything for me, no matter how many times I listened -- as far as Low's vocal tracks go, give me "Breaking Glass" any day...! Still, that's nothing to do with the article quality, which I think is largely sufficient for FA. Following a copyedit I'm fine with prose, comprehensiveness, and tone, but will hold off support until Nikki's source review is complete. On the subject of sourcing, I wish I had ready access to my copy of Carr and Murray's Bowie: The Illustrated Record, wherein I think the authors remarked on the irony of the BBC choosing such a thematically dark song for promo purposes, but that needn't hold up promotion. Good work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Ian Rose Looks like Nikkimaria has no more queries. – zmbro _(talk) 12:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Could be -- Nikki can I just confirm? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No more queries on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Tks Nikki, GTG then I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by Graham Beards

On the whole, this is a well-written and engaging article, well done.

• The song is famous for its use of sixth intervals on the lead guitar part, which run throughout the song (notes B+G, C+A and so on). Do we have a source so we can include this?

• Not that I know of. The only source I have that would say it is O'Leary and he doesn't. I'm also not a guitarist so I wouldn't know. – zmbro _(talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nevermind, but if you are interested it is explained here (beginning in the middle): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QwcSR279eE Graham Beards (talk) 15:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Graham Beards I'll definitely give this a watch! As a drummer myself I more typically pay attention to that xP – zmbro _(talk) 15:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Take a look at WP:PLUSING, which explains the problem of fused participles. I saw three examples and I fixed one. The others are: "It begins as an instrumental, with elements building throughout its runtime" and "with Doggett writing". Is there a more graceful way to caste these phrases? Perhaps, "Beginning as an instrumental, elements are added...", and " and Doggett wrote". No dig deal since the meaning, at least to me is clear, but worth considering as an improvement.Graham Beards (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Graham Beards Thanks for the tips! Changed to "Beginning as an instrumental, elements are added..." and "Doggett writes:" (new sentence). – zmbro _(talk) 15:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 22 October 2021 [82].

---

Daisy (advertisement)

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Although aired just once, "Daisy" ad is referred to as one of the most controversial, yet most popular political advertisement. The ad was broadcast on September 7, 1964, with the intention of highlighting Lyndon B. Johnson's anti-war and anti-nuclear positions. However, the ad in-turn was interpreted as an attack ad on Barry Goldwater (Johnson's opponent in the election) and his positions on nuclear weapon. Immediately after its broadcast, the ad was pulled off, but it was frequently replayed and analyzed by network news. Johnson won the 1964 presidential election in a landslide victory, defeating Goldwater by a margin of almost 15 million votes. The Daisy ad is considered a significant reason was his victory, and is considered a turning point in political and advertising history. The article is almost re-written by me, it passed its DYK nomination, GA nomination and received its peer review comments from various editors. Thanks to all reviewers in advance. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• But the further reading section not so much. For featured article it is expected that if the source has something significant to add to the article, it should be cited, otherwise if there's nothing to add it probably isn't relevant enough or adding enough information to be worth putting in further reading. In particular the book that's specifically about the ad and not cited seems like a major oversight and something that makes me doubt this short article is fully comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 04:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Buidhe – In my opinion, the "Daisy Petals and Mushroom Clouds" book fits better in the Further reading section. Despite its title, the book is focused on Atomic theme and the 1964 election—i.e. the information already included in the Background sections of this article using various other sources. Despite the article's length (13,207 characters), I feel that all main aspects of the ad are covered. I have removed few books from the Further reading section which I feel aren't adding enough information related to the ad. Hope that addressed your concern. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Buidhe – Just a note that the book is now added as a source. Do let me know if you have any further concerns. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

It's good to see this important article at FAC, but I don't think that the FA criteria are met at present due to the sourcing issue noted above, as well as some other gaps:

• "It remains one of the most popular political advertisements" - popular seems an odd choice of word, and the reference here to a 1964 NYT story obviously doesn't support such a claim (is the ref really needed in the lead?)
  • Removed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The lead should note how Goldwater was perceived before the ad - like all really powerful political ads, this played on how he was seen
  • Added – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• "The principal work of Johnson's campaign" - this is a bit clunky
  • Rephrased – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Despite his relatively high polling numbers, Johnson felt safe to use rhetorical techniques to ensure his victory" - to be blunt, this doesn't make sense - what's the contradiction?
  • Tried to rephrase. Johnson had high polling numbers, and could have won the election even without this ad. Still, he felt safe to broadcast a controversial ad, when it could have easily backfired his campaign. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The article should discuss the anxieties Americans (quite rightly) were feeling about the risks of nuclear war at this time - it was less than two years after the Cuban missile crisis
  • Added a bit... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• It's also odd to not see Johnson's ruthless political tactics not discussed
  • Honestly, I didn't feel the need to include this. Johnson had very limited role to play in the creation or broadcast of this ad. Moreover, the ad wasn't intended to be an 'attack ad', but that is how it was interpreted. Wouldn't it go a bit off topic to discuss his political tactics, which isn't directly related with the ad? Please suggest... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• "visualize their child in the role of Corzilius" - awkward
  • Tried to rephrase. Is it still awkward? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The scholarly book on this topic noted in the 'further reading' section needs to be consulted - I'm not at all confident that the FA sourcing requirements are met without this. The blurb for the book states that it covers this topic quite broadly, so it may be possible to considerably expand or deepen the article. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Doing...
    • I have addressed this point by using the book as a source in the article, and adding various things which were not mentioned in the article or other books. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Nick-D – Thanks a lot for your review. I have attempted to address all your concerns, and replied above. As for the sourcing, I have added Robert Mann's book. I hope that addressed your concern. Requesting you to take a second look at the article regarding your leaning oppose. Feel free to suggest anything else which you feel would make the article closer to meeting the FA criteria. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – Is there something else I can do to improve the article, as I have already included Robert Mann's book. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking about this, but I'm sceptical about how little you sourced from the academic book on this topic. The article also seems to be dodging around both the nature of Johnson's political tactics (he's famous for how ruthless his politics were) and how extreme Goldwater was. The ad was part and parcel of Johnson's tactics, and worked because Goldwater was seen as being genuinely dangerous. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – I have addressed these comments by making necessary changes in the article. Goldwater's extremism is mentioned by various instances in the article and I have added some more facts about his reaction to the ad. I feel that focusing more on his 'extremism' would make the article less neutral. Rest, I feel that the article covers all major aspects of a 60 second ad which was aired just once. Do let me know if the changes were not satisfactory. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• Kavyansh.Singh, I'm not sure if the "Doing..." template is able to be used as, per WP:FAC, "[g]raphics [...] slow down load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives." Pamzeis (talk) 05:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – Given that various changes have been made in order to resolve all your comments, and the article is again copy-edited, do you still lean towards opposing this nomination? Of-course, you can suggest more changes, which I'll surely consider. Please take a second look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Shifted to just 'comments' until I read this more closely. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

From a further read:

• "Goldwater defended himself by charging Johnson with making the accusation indirectly and contending that the media blew the issue out of proportion" - it's not clear what this means, and the wording is close to the source. What the source is is unclear as well.
  • Removed the part about 'making the accusation indirectly', and just mentioned that media interpreted that Goldwater would use nuclear weapons, which Goldwater defended by saying that they [media] 'blew the issue out of proportion'. Hope that its clear now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• The first and second sentences in the para starting with 'The Johnson campaign portrayed' don't flow well, and the second sentence doesn't seem to fit well with the last sentence of this para. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The second sentence and the last sentence were somewhat contradicting each other, so I rephrased both of them for increasing the flow. Johnson did had high polling numbers, but that wasn't because of his accomplishments as the president, but because of Goldwater and his extreme statements. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – Done both. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but that revised wording is generally awkward and partly contradictory, and you haven't responded to my comment about what that source is. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D – I have further rephrased that, and now it isn't contradictory. Please excuse if I am mistaken here, but as for the source, it is an essay from Kennesaw State University, Georgia, and should be reliable. However, I'll leave it to the source reviewer to decide the reliability. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Who is the author of the article, and what is their status? It reads like an undergraduate essay, though may be course material aimed at undergraduates. The wording in the article remains short of FA-level prose I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

So I looked for any alternative source, but wasn't able to find any reliable newspaper/website/book/journal having the exact quote (with one impulsive act....) So I just removed the two sentences supported by that source, and merged the paragraph for flow. As for the article's prose, it was again copy-edited by a member of WP:GOCE on my request after your initial comments. I'll see what I can do, but I don't quite feel that it needs much work. Let's see what other reviewers think. Any further comments/suggestions to strengthen the prose are always welcome. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nick-D, sorry to press you, but should I be reading your comments as an "oppose", at least at the moment? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: no worries at all - I should have posted a follow up comment. I'm neutral at present: I still don't think that the prose is an example of our best work (the first para of the background section, for instance, doesn't flow particularly well), but it's not greatly problematic. I have have no objection to the nomination being promoted, but can't support it. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks Nick-D! Just wanted to say that it is completely fine. Your comments were really helpful, and they helped in improving the article. Much appreciated! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Grapple X

Some passing comments for now, hopefully will get a fuller review over the next day or so.

• Initially struck that we have a still from the ad in the infobox and then the full ad embedded later; given that the video's thumbnail is the same image as the screenshot is there any reason we couldn't just use the video in the infobox?
  • I just shifted the video from "Synopsis" section to the infobox. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• He often used various rhetorical techniques including the famous "Johnson Treatment" to gather votes in the senate—I don't think we need to get bogged down in too much detail but a brief gloss as to what the "Johnson Treatment" actually is would be a good idea, alternatively Lyndon B. Johnson#Senate Democratic leader has a meaty quote which explains it and could be linked to here (as "the famous "Johnson Treatment" perhaps) to provide context.
  • Linked. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• notably mocking his campaign slogan "In your heart, you know he's right" with the counter-slogan "In Your Guts, You Know He is Nuts"—Why is one of these in sentence case and the other in title case? No strong preference for either but surely they should both be consistent
  • Done – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• who proclaimed, "We will bury you! Your children will be Communists!"—I'm not a fan of introducing a quote with a comma when one wouldn't be present if the quote wasn't in quote marks; but in any case as a multiple-sentence quote this should more properly be introduced with a colon per WP:MOS#QUOTE
  • Replaced with a colon – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• that "[at] the next level, [they could] really run a savage assault: a billboard, e.g., [could] be devised reading 'Goldwater in 64—Hotwater in 65?' with a mushroom cloud in the background."—There's a bit of legwork being done here to keep this quote flowing; is it better to quote less of it (just the proposed slogan perhaps) and paraphrase the rest?
  • Removed some less important part of the quote, and rephrased the rest. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Vote for President Johnson on November 3[rd]" —The date formatting throughout the article doesn't use ordinals like "3rd", it's strange to interpolate one here if it's not necessary.
  • The ordinals are added here just because they were used in the advertisement too. Nothing much to do with date consistency in the article, as they are inside the quotes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The video just displays "November 3", which would be consistent with the rest of the date usage internally too. I think we could drop the "[rd]".
      • Yeah, the video just displays November 3, but the voice-over reads it as "November third". However, this is a minor point, and I can drop the "[rd]" if necessary. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:35, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Might be a good idea to attribute the Auden comparisons to who's making them; were they being drawn at the time or is this a retrospective analysis?
• Make no mistake, there's no such thing as a 'conventional nuclear weapon' .... To do so now is a political decision of the highest order. It would lead us down an uncertain path of blows and counter-blows whose outcome none may know.—Seems to be a four-dot ellipsis in there
  • Fixed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Eisenhower replied – "Barry, in my mind, this is actual tommyrot."—fronting a quote with a dash like this is inconsistent with the rest of the article
  • Fixed – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• they were trying to use what the voters already knew"—Missing a full stop here, whether you want it in or out of the quote marks.
  • Added – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• A minor point but the quote box in the last heading runs alongside a block quote which looks a little jarring; might be worth looking at moving the quote box template up a paragraph to remove that overlap. It should lose no context as it's clear what its connection is within the heading.
  • Shifted the quote box – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• I feel like we're good as far as information and historical context goes and there does seem to be a good breadth of sourcing; I can't comment to Nick-D's reservations on this but as a lay reader I was not struck by any obvious gaps in context. That said I think the prose strength is where we need most focus; I'm not a confident copy-editor at FA standards but I still found a few inconsistencies and errors, which should be easily addressed but likely aren't exhaustive. As this is still a fresh nomination and will likely have more breathing time here, it may be worth asking at WP:GOCE/R if anyone is able to give it a once-over. I'll take another look at it during the week to see if I can't come up with anything else. That said it's an interesting subject and I do enjoy these deep-dives on narrower fields. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:17, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  Changes look good so far. I'll be able to return to this in more depth tomorrow hopefully. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  • @Grapple X – Thanks for your comments. I had request User:Twofingered Typist to take a look at the article, and he was kind enough to help further copy edit the article. Do let me know of you have any further comments or suggestions. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Taking a second sweep through now.

• Lead mentions that the ad is also sometimes known as "Peace, Little Girl" but this isn't mentioned elsewhere--some of the sources use the name in their titles so it shouldn't be difficult to work this in.
  • Added in the prose that the ad wad initially known as "Peace, Little Girl" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• A few duplicate links; Corzillus' name and the Democratic National Convention both appearing more than once
  • Fixed. The tool now tells "No duplicated links were detected" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Looking at the mention of the 84 Mondale advert--I don't know that the information presented is enough to really justify a link; can we get a direct comparison drawn to this?
  • While researching, I got a perfect citation for this; added a line which further justifies why the ad was similar to "Daisy". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • We still don't mention an explicit comparison between the two; it's not enough to just describe superficial similarity without a source already making an explicit link between them (this is the same issue with the Auden material below). Looking at the Spokane Chronicle source, it does make direct reference to the Daisy advert, stating Mondale [...] seeks, without the subtlety of Lyndon B Johnson's 1964 ad etc. So the source does draw direct parallels here but we don't mention that. You don't need to directly quote the comparison but do use that source to state plainly that comparisons were drawn to the earlier advert when the Mondale one aired.
      • Now mentioned that the ad was compared with Daisy, for having similar nuclear themes. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Still would like to see attribution when we're comparing the advert to that Auden poem, I'm not keen on doing that in wikipedia's voice.
  • Did I address this? If not, could you please further clarify this point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • What I mean is that "Johnson's line: "We must either love each other, or we must die" echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem "September 1, 1939", which reads: "We must love one another or die."" is stated as a matter of fact, and while yes we can see looking at the lines that they're extremely similar, we really should be attributing the comparison to someone who has made it in a reliable source. The source you've added, Taylor 1992, does this just discuss Auden's poem or does it explicitly describe the similarity between the two?
      • Ah, I see. The comparison of similarity between the ad and Auden's poem is discussed in this source, which says ""Decades earlier, Lyndon B. Johnson drew on another line from the poem [September 1, 1939] in his famous 1964 "Daisy" campaign commercial ..."". I have cited that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Speaking of Auden, in the excerpt quoted, it seems the italic emphasis on the last line is not in the original; since we already highlight it in prose I don't think we need the italics here
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "the White House switchboard "lit up with calls protesting it [the advertisement]""—I think rather than the aside here, we could go with "the White House switchboard "lit up with calls" protesting the advertisement"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• "When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that a miscount might be more appealing to the voters"—I know it's what's used in the source but given that we're talking about voting, I don't know if "miscount" is the best word here; perhaps "When Corzilius was unable to count to ten successfully during filming, it was decided that her mistakes might be more appealing to the voters."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• All for now. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Grapple X – Addressed all. Thanks for taking a second look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Grapple X – Hi! The previous 2 points raised were probably resolved. Any follow-ups? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I still don't see the point regarding Auden has having been addressed but perhaps I wasn't explaining myself correctly. It's not that I would like to see more sources cited as footnotes, but that an actual attribution to the person making the comparison is what I feel we should be using. Instead of saying the two are alike, and then appending a citation, we need to point out that someone has made that comparison for us. You can name the writer specifically ("journalist Maureen Corrigan has noted that Johnson's line: "We must either love each other, or we must die" echoes line 88 of W.H. Auden's poem...") or make the attribution in a passive voice ("It has been noted that...", although this should really be used if there's a wider sampling of sources than just this one). My point is that it is preferable to ensure that this kind of literary analysis is clearly being attributed to third-party sources and not to Wikipedia's voice (which is essentially the difference between stating a fact and citing it, and stating that someone believes a fact and quoting them). I hope this makes more sense. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 13:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @Grapple X – Yeah, and now done, both for Auden and Mondale ad. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Grapple X – Just a courtesy ping that are you in a position of either supporting or opposing this nomination. And of-course, feel free to add any more comments if required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think at this point enough work has been done to address my concerns; I am prepared to support at this time. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and support. Much appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Support by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

• only once officially - officially only once. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• DDB isn't used again in the lede, so no need to acronym it here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Removed the acronym from the lead. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• emphatically, "These - do we need a caps here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • We need. The quotations is a complete sentence.
• The lede should probably mention which party each candidate stood for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I now mentioned that Goldwater was a Republican. Mentioning the Johnson was a Democrat would be reluctant, as it should be self explanatory, given that DNC is listed as a client in the infobox. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Prose

• percent - per cent is two words. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed to '%' all over for consistency. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• According to Press Secretary Moyers, the White House switchboard "lit up with calls" protesting the advertisement; President Johnson called him and asked, "Jesus Christ, what in the world happened?" - this probably needs a bit of expansion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• said, "Make no mistake, - the caps for quotes happens a few times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I re-read the article, and have removed caps where they are unnecessary. Usually, direct quotations which start with a new sentence take caps. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Barry, in my mind, this is actual tommyrot. - what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Rephrased. Tommyrot is inside quotations, so can't rephrase that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• "Ice-cream ad". - is this a quote? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No, removed the quotations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• The WP:SEEALSO section is a bit of a mess. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe now its better. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• History is currently listed as an unreliable source. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Replace both citations from History with another sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Hi @Lee Vilenski – Thanks for the review. Any followups? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Lee Vilenski – Just a kind reminder for your comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski – Thanks for your comments. I have addressed all of them. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Spot check and source review — Pass

Version initially reviewed — this. Current Ref numbers may differ. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Actually, I reviewed this version Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a pretty heavy reliance on newspapers in this article, always a worrisome sign as they tend to be so-so sources (sensationalism, getting basic facts wrong etc.). And here they are even many contemporary ones... Beyond that the sourcing's OK.

I note some inconsistencies, with some sources having archives and others lacking them. Spot-check:

I again ran the IA bot, and it archived 6 sources. Do I need to manually archive the rest? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Eh, I don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• 44: OK, but I see that it calls the ad "Daisy Chain"?
  • Honestly, I don't know why, when no other major source calls it "Chain"
    • Fair enough. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 47: OK.
• 63: OK.
• 8: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Just see the archived link. It has the complete article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • "This page is not available on the web because page does not exist"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jo-Jo Eumerus – Well, the archived link does open for me. Do I need to send screenshots? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
• 80: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • It's behind a paywall..... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 18: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Available on Open library, free registration. Here is the link.
• 13: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Just see the archived link. It has the complete article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 6: OK.
• 60: OK.
• 66: OK but the text is very similar to the source.
  • Nothing much to rephrase, but tried. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 11: Which part of the source supports this claim?
  • Ref#10 supports Goldwater voting against Nuclear Test Ban Treats, and this source supports the treaty passing from the Senate by a vote of 80-14. Quoting the source – ""The U.S. Senate votes to provide its advice and consent for ratification of the LTBT by a vote of 80 to 14."" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 53: OK.
• 25: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Currently, I don't have this book in physical format or PDF format. Neither is this available anywhere online, except the site, where it shows a few part of every chapter of the book. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 5: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Just see the archived link. It has the complete article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 29: I don't see Ehrlich mentioned here, is that in the other source?
  • Yeah. In one of the three sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• 65: OK.
• 77: OK.
• 82: OK.
• 40: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Available on Open library, free registration. Here is the link.
• 16: Can I have a copy of this article?
  • Available on Open library, free registration. Here is the link.

Imma ping Ealdgyth for a second opinion on the various newspaper sources (WaPo, NYT etc.) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Provided copy of all the articles you requested which I could. As for the newspapers part, many FA's that rely on newspaper, and I don't think that it is an issue, provided that the newspaper is a reliable one. I have always considered The New York Times and The Washington Post reliable sources. And I don't think that I have cited any newspaper, which doesn't has a Wikipedia article (i.e. all are notable enough). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Any updates on remaining spot-checks and sourcing? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Do let me know if there's anything else I can do for the source review to be passed. Thanks for your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria – Can you please provide a second opinion on some newspaper sources (like The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.) used in this article? Are they unreliable to use? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

If I understand Jo-Jo Eumerus correctly, the concern is not simply are these reliable yes/no, but are they overused. Those particular papers are not unreliable in general, and on a quick look I'm not seeing any that raise red flags. But in terms of overreliance, can you speak to your approach to locating sources for this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, the way I would go about this is to first start with academic sources and to only use newspapers to illustrate how the topic was covered in contemporary coverage and to cover uncontroversial facts. But upon thinking more, I am not sure anymore that this article is overusing news sources so I'll retract this concern. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

That is what I tried. Most of the newspaper sources are used in the "Political usage and aftermath" section, discussing about the contemporary coverage of the ad. I initially tried to cite this article completely using books/journals. But, to comprehensively discuss about immediate aftermath and later uses, newspapers seems helpful. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus – Just a kind reminder that the nomination in nearing a month, but the source review and spot-checks are still pending. I have responded to all the previous concerns. Would appreciate if you can take a second look. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I think this passes the source and spot check reviews. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis — support

Not a politics person... I will try not to screw this up.

• Unlink United States in the infobox per MOS:OL
  • Sure, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "was a controversial — does the ad not exist anymore? If it still does, I believe "was" should be "is" per MOS:TENSE
  • Here, 'was' is used as the ad has never been broadcast since 1964. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "point in political and advertising history" — firstly, I don't understand why "political" links to politics in the United States. The article suggests it's just political history in general. If not, then, I would suggest adjusting the article to highlight that it is political history in the US. If so, then unlink it because linking politics would be an overlink. Unlink "advertising" as well.
  • Unlinked both. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "advertising agency and [...] created the Daisy advertisement" — not keen on having "advertising" and "advertisement" in the same sentence...
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Immediately after its initial broadcast" — remove "initial" as redundant
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "several times by media, like the" — "like" seems a bit informal here. I'd suggest changing it to "such as"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, I would recommend having only one to two paragraphs as this article has, by my count, approximately 13,000 characters
  • Well, the article was copy edited by User:Twofingered Typist, who suggested to break it into 4 paras, as every para deals with a separate subject. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the assassination of his predecessor John F. Kennedy" — is Kennedy the only predecessor? If so, add a comma after "predecessor"
  • Well, all the presidents who served before Johnson (35 men) were his predecessors, but Kennedy was his immediate predecessor. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not great with active and passive tenses but: "Johnson was seen by many as a ruthless politician effective at getting legislation passed." → Many saw Johnson as a ruthless politician effective at getting legislation passed. (To be more concise and, I think, convert to active tense)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll hopefully leave more comments later. Ping me if I don't reply within a week! Pamzeis (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Pamzeis – Thanks a lot for taking a look. I have addressed/replied above. Feel free to add any further comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

More comments:

• Try not to have ad, advertisement, advertising, etc. in the same sentence
  • Tried to address this issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "although the true authorship is unclear" — authorship meaning writer? Creator? Visual effect creator? The last thing mentioned is the ad's visual effects though this sentence seems to suggest creator. I would appreciate something more specific.
  • I guess that the sentence structure quite clearly says that the 'authorship' here means authorship for visual effects. Any suggestion as to how to make it more clear without repeating it? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I've reworded this but feel free to revert me if you dislike the wording.
• "with a young girl, three-year-old Monique Corzilius" — I believe "young girl" is redundant: "young" is vague and three-year-old conveys the meaning much better; I believe "Monique Corzilius" will already tell the reader that she is a girl.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "missile launch countdown" — linking countdown seems to be a bit of an overlink
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The blackness is replaced instantly by the bright flash" → A bright flash instantly replaces the blackness
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "scene then cuts to footage" — omit the redundant "then"
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "on November 3[rd]" — I do not believe the "rd" is necessary per MOS:BADDATE
  • Since you and Grapple X both have mentionned this, I have removed the '[rd]'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "September 7, 1964 telecast of" — add a MOS:DATECOMMA after "1964"
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "of David Bathsheba on The NBC Monday Movie. As the David and Bathsheba film" — can this possibly be reworded to avoid repetition of "David and Bathsheba"?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "film was based on a biblical story, it was considered a family film" → film is based on a biblical story, it is considered a family film (MOS:TENSE)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "that about a hundred million people" — "about" sounds a bit informal to me. Perhaps replace it with "approximately" or "roughly"?
  • Replaced with 'approximately'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Fears of nuclear war were related to the audience by a young girl eating ice cream." — I'm confused here. How can a young girl eating ice cream connect to fears of nuclear war? Can we elaborate here?
  • Done (hopefully) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Other notable commercials" — per MOS:OFCOURSE, try to replace or omit "notable"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Other notable uses of the" — same as above
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• The quote box in #Political usage and aftermath serves no clear purpose
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Another child actor, Birgitte Olsen, falsely claimed" — seems a bit sudden. Perhaps start with Corzilius and then talk about Olsen?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• Also remove the commas around "Birgitte Olsen"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "has maintained that position for years" — does she still? If not, replace "has" with "had"
  • Maybe, she still does. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Corzilius became known publicly as the "Daisy" girl after this" — Huh? After what? Olsen's claim?
  • After the initial broadcast in 1964. Newspapers referred to that girl as the "Daisy" girl. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Ping me after these are resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 03:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis I have tried to resolve all of your concern. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support — I've actually never heard of this ad before… But best of luck with this article. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here :). Pamzeis (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support on prose from Extraordinary Writ

As promised, I am here (although inexcusably late). I'll probably focus on prose, although I'll comment on anything that sticks out at me. I'm a bit busy right now, so bear with me if I take a while to get this done.

• "to gather votes in the senate" – capitalize Senate.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "he got the Civil Rights Act passed by Congress" – "got" is an unusual word choice, even if it's not technically wrong. Perhaps something like "he successfully urged Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act" would be more natural?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the ratification of Nuclear Test Ban Treaty" – the ratification of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "eventually passed through the senate" – capitalize Senate, and "passed the Senate" might be more natural.
  • Somewhat done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "They emphasized on Goldwater's extremism"– remove "on"
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "shouldn't have strontium-90 or cesium 37" – I'm not a chemist, but I know that cesium-37 is physically impossible. Are you sure the source doesn't say cesium-137?
  • Yeah, its cesium-137. Corrected and linked. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• In note b, I would link punitive damages and remove the quotation marks.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Moyers later said: "It [Daisy ad] accomplished" – this should be "the Daisy ad", but it might be easier to get rid of the brackets and just write Moyers later said that the ad "accomplished its purpose..."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

More to come. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Is there any rhyme or reason as to whether "Daisy" is in quotation marks or not? We have "created the Daisy advertisement" but "The "Daisy" advertisement has been used". I'm not sure it really matters which one you choose: all that matters is consistency.
  • Now, every instance, where "Daisy" is used to refer to the ad has quotation marks. Exceptions to this are places where Daisy is either inside direct quotations, or it refers to that flower which has very less to do with the ad, but still responsible for ad's title. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "telecast of David and Bathsheba film" – missing a "the". I'd recommend "of the film David and Bathsheba. (As an irrelevant sidenote, I'm baffled by why they'd think the story of David and Bathsheba would make a nice "family film", but that's neither here nor there.)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "...leaving their parents watching the film, and eventually manipulated into visualizing their child in Corzilius's role" – this sentence is a bit unwieldy grammatically. It might be clearer to split it up into two sentences: I'm having trouble thinking of a good way to do that, but I'm sure you can come up with something.
  • Tried ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Immediately after its broadcast, the ad was pulled off the air" – was the ad supposed to have been shown again? You don't really touch on that.
  • No, it was not supposed to be shown again. Johnson's advisors had already planned to pull back the ad after its initial broadcast, believing that it will be pointless to repeat it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I see. When you say "the ad was pulled off the air", that implies (at least to me) that it was supposed to be shown again (or was being shown again) but was cancelled. If all you mean is that it was only shown once, it might be clearer to just say that explicitly. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Done. I just removed that sentence, as it has already been mentioned that the ad was broadcast just once. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• Curious as I am about "Johnson's camping strategy", I presume I will only get to learn about his campaign strategy.
  • Oh... fixed! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "we all realized it [Daisy ad] would create" – in context, I think it's clear enough what "it" is referring to: the brackets aren't needed
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• "told the Senate on September 16" – linking United States Senate is overlinking, in my view. (If you do really want to link it, you should do so earlier in the article, e.g. at "to gather votes in the Senate".)
  • Removed the link. I assume, most of the reader know what Senate is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
• ""actual tommyrot" – might be worth a link to wikt:tommyrot
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

More later. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ – Thanks a lot for your comments. Addressed all. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• "one of the largest margins of the popular vote" – if you have the information, it might be worth giving the popular vote percentage.
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "compared with the "Daisy" due to" – remove the "the", or otherwise add commercial/advertisement after "Daisy".
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "as one of their campaign ad" – one of their campaign ads. Also, this sentence uses the word "ad" three times: it's a bit repetitive.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "see the "Daisy" commercial" – these should be single quotes (since it's a quote-within-a-quote), although I notice the original source doesn't use quotation marks at all.
  • That isn't quote-within-a-quote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Although the MOS doesn't say so directly, I understand the usual convention to be that single quotation marks should also be used for a title-within-a-quote; see [83]. This obviously isn't a hill I'm going to die on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "after broadcast of the commercial" – after the broadcast
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "the commercial. Though, she did not see the "Daisy" commercial" – perhaps combine these sentences, e.g. "the commercial, although she did not..." (Starting this sort of sentence with "though" strikes me as wrong, although I can't quite place my finger on why.) Also, it might be worth adding "herself" (or "for herself") after "'Daisy' commercial", just to be clear.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Another child actor Birgitte Olsen falsely claimed" – commas around "Birgitte Olsen"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "a "sequel" to the ad" – might be worth stating the message of this ad: arguing that Trump (like Goldwater) was unfit to have access to the nuclear arsenal.
  • Done. Though I didn't Done, although I didn't compared him with Goldwater, as most source don't explicitly compare him that way. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
    • "which argued Trump's ability to handle nuclear weapons." – I think you're missing a word or two.
      • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "you know he is nuts" – it's a contraction (he's nuts) in the source.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• "then-Soviet leader" – the then Soviet leader. (I think you can get rid of the hyphen too: a Google search suggests it isn't used.)
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
• On footnote 53 ("LBJ's 1964 attack ad..." in the WaPo), you seem to have reversed the author's first and last names.
  • Nice catch. Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think we're just about there as far as the prose is concerned; I'll read it through again later and that should be all. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@Extraordinary Writ – Thanks again! I have addressed all your comments. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• "over Republican Party's candidate Barry Goldwater" – "over the Republican Party's candidate..." or (my preference) simply "over Republican candidate..."
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "John P. Roohe" – per the source, I think it's "Roche".
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "25,033,262" and similar: per MOS:CURRENCY, inflation conversions should be rounded to two or three significant figures.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "instantly replaces the blackness" – missing punctuation
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "this treaty [Nuclear Test Ban Treaty]." this treaty [the Nuclear...]
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

None of those nitpicks keep me from giving my support on prose: there are things that I might word differently, but I think the overall quality is adequate. Thanks for your hard work on this important article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your support and kind word; I have addressed few remaining points. And congrats for Melville Fuller! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Query for the coordinators

• @FAC coordinators: – With 5 reviews, three of which have declared their support and one review in underway, as well as a passed image and source review

1. May I nominate another article (Harry S. Truman 1948 presidential campaign) for FAC?
2. Is this nomination on the right track? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Starting with 2, broadly yes, but it has some prose issues, as picked up by Nick-D above. The prose needs to be "of a professional standard" if the article is to be promoted. Re 1, I think that we need to see what Nick's current view is on the prose before we ok a further nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Gog the Mild. I'll surely wait to see what Nick-D thinks of the article, but I think that I have, at-least attempted to resolve their concerns. I'll be more than happy to address any further comments. Thanks! And as an aside note, thanks for promoting Draft Eisenhower movement yesterday, Gog! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, you may nominate another article. I haven't looked at Truman, but can I suggest that you take pains to ensure that "its prose is engaging and of a professional standard" - which, of course, it may well be already. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild – I'll nominate it soon. I had opened a peer review page, which was reviewed by Hog Farm and DanCherek, and no major concerns were found. It has been copy-edited, so I think the prose may be fine. But can't predict what a reviewer will bring up; I'll be responsive to reviewer's concerns. Also, we now have 4 supports here ... Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Ian Rose – How is this one looking? Been open for a month, with 5 supports, passed image review, passed source review with spot-checks, and one neutral. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild

Recusing to review. I shall copy edit as I go. If you don't like, or don't understand, anything, could you flag it up here. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Following the assassination of his predecessor John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president in November 1963." Link "president and state which country you are referring to.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• What is a "local spot"?
• "network ads" - likewise.
  • For both the above points: Both local spot and network ads are advertisements. Local spots were mostly broadcast then on radios on a smaller level by local advertisers, while Network ads were broadcast during prime-time in network programs, on a larger level. See this. Do you suggest me to add this in the article? I think it would be a bit off topic, but we can summarize it in a footnote. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I should have explained, I like to ask rhetorical questions. I know what they are, but many readers won't. Ideally an FA should be readily comprehensible without a reader needing to consult Wikilinks or footnotes. In the case of technical topics they may be a necessary evil, but I am not sure that we have to break many readers concentration in this case by referring them to a footnote in order for them to understand what they have just read.

Tried to incorporate in the prose itself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "kick off" is WP:INFORMAL.
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "The parent would eventually be manipulated into visualizing their child in Corzilius's role." This doesn't make sense to me. What in the sorce are you basing it on?
  • Somewhat rephrased. This source supports that.
• "Schwartz suggested the ad "struck a responsive chord among the voters". As Schwartz was one of the ads creators he would say that, wouldn't he? Is there no unbiased opinion which could replace this? If not, better to delete I think.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• What does "pulling the ad" mean? And is it WP:INFORMAL?
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Of the 1,800 replies received". Exactly 1,800?
  • Well, approximately. My bad ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Consider an in line explanation of "tommyrot".
  • Added "Nonsense" inside squared brackets. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• IMO the extended block quote on the ice-cream ad falls foul of MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Especially given the heavy use of quotations throughout the article.
  • I tried. Can you please check for any issues there. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Other commercials included "Confessions of a Republican" and "Eastern Seaboard". " Either explain each or replace with a more general statement.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be losing worthwhile content. How would you feel about something like 'The Johnson campaign ran further advertisments in a similar vein, including "Confessions of a Republican" and "Eastern Seaboard".'?

Looks fine. Added back. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• "As of the 2020 presidential election, Johnson retains the victory with the highest popular vote percentage since the popular vote first became widespread in the 1824 presidential election." This does not make grammatical sense. "Johnson retains the victory"?
  • Rephrased. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "has maintained that position for years." Does that mean to this day? If so, say so. ('to at least late 2021'.)
  • Not sure. There are very few sources which even discuss this claim, with the most reliable one being cited. Removed the part ("maintained that position for years") – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "which argued Trump's ability to handle the nuclear weapons." I assume that this makes sense in US English. For a more international audience, perhaps 'which argued that Trump was incompetent to be in control of nuclear weapons' or similar?
  • Replaced. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "Corzilius said, "The fear of nuclear war ..." In Clinton's ad, or seperately?
  • In the ad itself. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• "when asked whether he approved the "Daisy" commercial". Do you mean that, or 'when asked whether he approved of the "Daisy" commercial'?
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• The final block quote, see comments above on MOS:QUOTE.
  • This now remains the only "blockquote" in the article. Can try to incorporate it in the prose if you still insist, but I think its fine there. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• The two notes would seem to me better worked into the main text, especially the first one.
  • Added the first one. The second one is still bit off topic for the prose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild – Did most of them. Just suggestions/clarification needed as few points above. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking good. If I haven't responded to a point, assume I am content. Do shout if you don't like any of my copy editing. A couple of points I have come back on above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild – Thanks! Addressed the remaining 2 points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies if I am missing something, but @Ian Rose, how is this one going? We have 5 supports, 1 neutral, passed image/source reviews. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry KS, your earlier ping got lost amid a bunch of FACbot notifications to me. Can't see anything obvious needed, will walk through the article with a view to closure in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2021 [84].

---

Battle of Oroscopa

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

A short article on a brief conflict from 2,172 years ago. Despite the article's brevity I believe that I have extracted all the information from the sources that there is. An inconsequential conflict in itself, it is much commented on as the event which sparked the Third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage. Enjoy. But in a constructively critical way. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 00:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• How are you ordering Sources?

Le Bohec moved.

• Harris: edition statement shouldn't be part of the title paramter

Gah! I've done it again! Fixed.

• Where is Warminster?

Apparently in Wiltshire. Is that a trick question, or did Iazyges get there before me?

The latter, although now I'm not sure that Cambridgeshire is strictly necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I am sure that it’s not, and have already removed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

You've removed one; there is another. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

*rolly eyes* I need to put more water in it. Terminated. Thank you. 21:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• One UNESCO (publisher) is sufficient, don't need two.

Can't have too much of UNESCO, but if you insist ...

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks once again Nikkimaria, all done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Iazyges

• Was the GA reviewer recently, have no further suggestions. I have added state locations to some refs without them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Grapple X

• Hasdrubal the Boetharch is being linked here; that article states "He may have been the same Hasdrubal who was defeated at the Battle of Oroscopa in 151 BC" (emphasis mine)—granted that article is much less extensively sourced than this but is this uncertainty something we should be marking here perhaps?

Well now. In the sources Goldsworthy states they are different people; Bagnall, Miles and Harris unequivocally state that they are the same person. To my mind this gives a consensus to the "one person" school, and as Miles and Harris are specialists and Goldsworthy a generalist, and the former two academically considerably outrank the latter, I don't consider that we need to mention the single outlier as a minority opinion.

Fair. If not accepting them as one and same is the outlier then the Hasdrubal article is likely giving undue weight to it.

• The images both are freely licensed with clear histories as to their derivation. That said, the caption for File:Map of kingdom of numidia ancient algeria (cropped).png states this is "Numidia at its greatest extent"—is there a time frame for this? Given that the battle in question resulted from territorial gains it seems it may be concurrent with these events but if it is or isn't this would be useful to clarify

Good point. Caption changed.

Time frame is helpful but I would have retained the "greatest extent" part; even adding "in 150 BC" to the prior one would have been perfect.

• Strange to see no links to Numidian cavalry and, to a lesser extent, Carthago delenda est when these subjects come up, the former could easily be included while the latter might warrant a pipe (probably behind "systematically destroyed the city") for context. Just a nitpick, really.

Numidian cavalry. There is reference to the cavalry of the Numidians, and even a description of how they fought. The article on "Numidian cavalry" really relates to those who fought in the Second Punic War, and perhaps earlier. In the intervening 50 years the sources talk of increasing urbanisation, a more organised military structure and the army generally becoming more disciplined. So maybe there were "Numidian cavalry" in the 2PW and Wikipedia article sense and maybe there weren't. As the sources don't commit themselves, it would seem OR for me to.

Fair; the passage describing "cavalry charging and counter-charging while hurling javelins at each other" does seem to indicate a similar battlefield role though, I don't know that it would be OR so much as just an editorial choice not to, which is still fine.

Carthago delenda est. Don't get me started. I went through this repeatedly in the FAC of Third Punic War. Why should we mention an 18th century invention in order to make it clear that there is no record of any contemporary ever saying it in relationship to a war which is not the subject of this article? </rant>

Make sure you open and close any <rant> tags properly.

• Interesting to see another Carthaginian engagement decided by starvation—do any of the historians draw parallels to the Battle of the Saw?

Sadly not. Perhaps because it was so common.

• Other than this I'm satisfied with this article—brief, as you mention, but it does not feel incomplete, and the use of historical context makes it a perfectly self-contained read. Would take little to move to supporting this. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Grapple X and thanks for looking this over. I have responded above to all of your comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Happy to see that anything I've raised has been addressed/responded to. Happy to support this at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• " Rome ended... Rome's permission. Rome's ally" bit Rome-tastic.

I have tried to vary the language a little. Not sure how successful I have been.

• As with a lot of FAs I've reviewed lately, the first para of the lead appears to be a lead for the lead. You mention the heavy defeat and then go back and start explaining the events in brief. A lead for the lead seems odd to me.

I agree. Blame MOS:BEGIN and MOS:FIRST. "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where"; "The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. If appropriate, it should give the location and time. It should also establish the boundaries of the topic". A FAC without an introduction to the lead is basically failing FAC criterion 2 "It follows the style guidelines". (Talk about unintended consequences. At least, I hope they are unintended.)

Ok, well that's how it is I suppose. A lead within a lead. How .... curious. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Frequently annoys me. Meeting that requirement while writing to a professional standard. Grr.

• The numbers of men, precisely hundred or precisely 1000, is that for real? Should these numbers be "around"/"approximately" or was there a thing that Carthage worked in base ten exclusively?

I can only report what the sources say. Obviously I don't believe the precision for a moment, but the sources all trot out the round numbers without caveats, so me introducing any would be OR. I have just rechecked them; even a retired field marshall, Bagnall, trots out the nice round numbers.

• In the first para you say "unknown location in northern Tunisia" but then you say "the Carthaginian-held town of Oroscopa" so this is a little odd for me. We know the town name, we just don't (apparently) know its precise geo-location.

Yep. That is exactly the situation. (Classicists spend a lot of time trying to identify the modern location of places named in ancient primary texts. And squabbling with each other about their preferences.)

So why in the lead wouldn't you say it happened in Oroscopa, rather than an "unknown location"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Both are true, but you're correct. Changed to "near the ancient town of Oroscopa in what is now northwestern Tunisia", which should work for most readers. They can find out in the main article that it is no more narrowed down than that.

• "tribal levies " what are they?

Rephrased.

• " was able to starve the Carthaginians into surrender." so a siege then?

Weell, not in my book. To me a siege is something that happens to a fixed location - a fortification or town - not an army. Or we would have the siege of Dunkirk and the siege of Bastogne (Battle of the Bulge) during WW2. If you think it helps reader comprehension I am not overly anti, but that's why I didn't use the term.

• "perhaps most, were killed" of them.

Added.

• "There Hasdrubal was condemned" I would put a comma after There.

Done. (It now reads as gibberish to me, but I have given up on comma wars - there are different schools and the debates can get tedious.)

Sorry, the addition of a comma means that "It now reads as gibberish"? Really? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Carthaginians were" you're using a different pipelink from the one you used in the lead for exactly the same displayed text, confusing.

In the main article I am referring to the foundation of Carthage, so a link to History of Carthage seemed appropriate. I have linked to Ancient Carthage at first mention of Carthage in the previous sentence. I can remove History of Carthage if you wish.

I suggest you don't have Carthage pipelinked twice but to completely different articles. How you cope with that is up to you, might need a little imagination in re-phrasing the prose to make it less easter egg I suppose. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "stripped them of their overseas territories, and some of their African ones." African ones were overseas as well...

Not from Carthage, which is in Africa. See the map in Aftermath.

• "At the end of the war which war?

Stated.

• "raided into territory" never heard "raided into", just "raided"...

66,000 examples [85]

3.7 mn examples of the present tense, the first from Oxford reference [86]

Amazing. I would imagine "raids into" would be standard, but "raided into" is most odd to my ear. How many hits for "raided territory"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

!,470! [87]. But possibly that's not quite what you meant.

Some support for its academic use - [88]

• "grandfather's old ally do you mean elderly or former?

Ah, yes. Neither. Removed.

• You start and end the battle para with the 151 BC claim, do we need both, or should that last sentence be moved up/merged?

Ah. I really, really take your point. But I can't move up that the battle and surrender, which I have not yet mentioned, to the start. And removing the date at the start is playing silly beggers with the reader. Is it that bad> The reader is told at the start that Numidian raids were happening in 151. At the end they are told that the key events happened in late 151. But I can see why you flag it up. Any thoughts?

So you're using the last sentence as a summary? It just strikes me as odd to do that. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah. No, intended more to deliniate when it was all over by. Rephrased to express that a little more clearly. I hope.

• "Carthage paid off its indemnity in 151 BC" so within months?

Clarified.

• Several intrusive reference placements, never been a massive fan of mid-sentence refs when I firmly believe that readers can wait until the end of a clause before getting linked up to the info they might need.

And I get driven potty by cites which are wilfully not placed next to the information they support. Leaving a reader playing a guessing game at the end of a sentence. If cites are not to be tied to the information they support why not group them at the end of the paragraph, or section. Or all at the end of the article. That would certainly minimise reader distraction.

That's a little extreme, but punctuating sentences with multiple references about completely non-controversial matters seems a little absurd to me. If you're citing things which could be argued over, then fine, but most of your mid-sentence cites are nothing special and could easily just go at the end of clauses or sentences. Perhaps I'm used to reading scientific and engineering papers where we tend to assume a minimum level of intelligence in our readers who can think "well it must be in one of those three citations at the end of the sentence" yet prefer that to the horrible interruption of citations literally mid-sentence. There's no "guessing game". And we're looking for professional prose, not punctuated with [43][67] etc. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, you caught me on a sore spot. I shouldn't have gone into rant mode. Plenty of my sources match cites to prose, regardless of whether that coincides with the end of a sentence, and I tend to think of them as professional.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I even said "end of a clause" so not even a sentence. Your extreme example wasn't what I was saying in any sense. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think that it was what you meant. It was intended as a reductio ad absurdum of removing the close attachment of cites from what they support. I did understand "clause" to mean sentence, so I will have a check to see if there is room for any movement and get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Evening TRM, and many thanks for that. Good, thought-provoking stuff. Responses to your comments above. Some I am afraid at some length. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

That was very prompt. Thank you. More from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon TRM, all citations are now immediately after puncuation, which is hopefully satisfactory. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi TRM, do you have more to come on this? If not, do you feel able to either support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I re-read and it's fine by me, so I'm happy to go for support on this one. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Gog, I'm a bit rusty but some suggestions follow...

• Hasdrubal wlinks to Hasdrubal the Boeotarch which redirects to Hasdrubal the Boetharch which says "not to be confused with the Greek boeotarch" - do your sources definitely use the extra "o" and missing "h" spelling for him?

My sources don't mention "Boetharch" or any variant thereof. Changed to avoid the redirect.

• In the mid-2nd-century - remove second hyphen?

Done.

• "by the Romans by the" - reword to avoid 2x "by the" (perhaps, "The Romans referred to the Carthaginians by the Latin word Punicus..."?)

Done.

• Many senior Carthaginians wanted to reject it, but - swap "it" to "the treaty" (or it could read as "it" referring to Senate's permission)

Done.

• it is unclear as to whether Masinissa - remove "as to"

Done.

• components of their shields and equipment - other equipment

Done.

• Masinissa's son, Gulassa redlink - is this an alt spelling of Gulussa?

Nope, it's a typo. Fixed.

• Hasdrubal was condemned to death - was he killed?

No. (I deliberately haven't gone into the post-battle story of either commander.)

• massacre probably were probably over by late - probably remove a probably

Oops. Done

• faction within the Roman Senate that had wished - is overlink intentional?

No. Fixed. Thanks.

• the city of Carthage - wlink?

Done.

• 50,000 of them, who were sold into slavery - in lede you have "death or enslavement of its population."

True. And? "... and killed its inhabitants. Only on the last day were prisoners taken ..." in the body would seem to cover this.

• The formerly Carthaginian territories became - former? (would be adverb if say verb 'held' was used?)

Changed.

• The location of Oroscopa, other than that it was in what is now northern Tunisia is not clear. - I think a comma is needed after Tunisia

Done.

• there are 2 years with non-breaking spaces (201 BC and 151 BC) - remove those or add to rest for consistency

Done.

• northwestern v south west of - format

Standardised.

• regardless of the treaty - maybe disregarding? (they basically mean same but disregarding sounds more wilful?)

Erm. You are stating that they mean the same thing, then suggesting a change because they don't. And to me regardless sounds more wilful. Not that I really care, but I thought that you may want to reconsider given your internal contradiction - let me know if you would still prefer the change.

Ha, internal contradiction? My head is full of them!

That'll do for me, JennyOz (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Excellent stuff JennyOz, as usual the article is the better for your dropping by. Is there more to come? Per your edit summary. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

All good thanks Gog, happy to add support. JennyOz (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Support and suggestion from Chidgk1

• Combine the 2 maps and add Rome. Remove siga and cirta

Nice idea, but unfortunately both are pre-printed maps - I can either use them as they are or not at all. Sadly I have not been able to find any maps of this period which are better. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it would be an easy job for the wizards at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop to knock one up. As a European I know where Rome is but I expect a lot of southern hemisphere people do not, so I think it would really help anyone completely new to European history. Also adding Vaga might inspire some keen archaeology student to try and find Oroscopa. Also a good image coming up in Google search might lead someone to click through to the article. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found this comment useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Request for the coordinators

@Ian Rose:@FAC coordinators: Permission to nominate another? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 October 2021 [89].

---

Suzanne Lenglen

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, a French tennis player from the 1920s. She won Wimbledon six times in singles and six times in doubles, and may have won many more major titles if she didn't retire from amateur tennis in 1926 at just 27 years old to turn professional. She never lost a match in Europe after World War I, but did lose the only amateur match she played in the United States. Although Lenglen is no longer as famous as the current top players, many fans of tennis today will recognize her name from Court Suzanne Lenglen at the French Open. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments the infobox photo is fantastic but I can barely see what she looks like in it, which is the purpose of an infobox photo. I suggest moving it further down and using this one instead in the infobox. Skimming through the article it looks well-written and researched, but one thing that seems to be missing is any information about how her death was received? Did France and the tennis world publicly mourn for her? Was her legacy immediately analysed and reassessed?

It's weird that even her death itself is written about so little. When I saw her dates in the opening sentence I went looking for what happened (there's nothing in the lede) and because she died so young I thought there would be a section or sub-section about it, but I had to scroll around for a bit before I found it in Personal life.—indopug (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi indopug, that's a good point. Besides where she was buried, the book also mentions where her funeral was held and lists some of the famous people from her life who attended. (I could add that?) I think the funeral was open to the public, but it doesn't say how many people were there. My impression from the books is that her death was relatively ignored. Part of the reason for that is because she had not really been in the public eye since she retired. The other reason is that her successor, Helen Wills, was making a comeback at Wimbledon the week she died and the tennis world was more focused on that. The New York Times obituary summarizes her life, but her early death did not change how she was perceived. The French obituaries are similar, I think. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I zoomed in more on the infobox photo. I didn't want to use the other photo of her sitting on a bench because it is not so representative of how she looked as a tennis player. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7

Quick comments Not a lot to say at this point, but some issues:

• Source 4: 61 pages is way too long. Break it down.
  • This section of the book is a list of all of her matches (like a WTA profile that recent and current players have). I shortened the instances when it was being used for specific events in the prose. I don't think it makes sense to shorten it for the career statistics section or the infobox, since the information in those sections spans her whole career (e.g. the timelines of her Grand Slam results). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Similarly, fn 87 and 88 are pushing it. (For an inconclusive discussion about this, see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 51#Page numbers)
  • Shortened these. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Reference required for the Major Finals section.
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Consider adding the Olympics to the Major Finals
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• fn 78 should be pp. 118–123; fn 86 should be pp. 619–620 (MOS:PAGERANGE: number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between)
  • Fixed these, and another similar instance. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to argue with me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber

Giving another lookover Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Okay - looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. I did tighten the language quite a bit with my first read-through before this FAC. Looking now I can't see any obvious prose-clangers but I am often not adept at picking things up after first read-through. Still i think this is in striking distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon

Quite a star worthy of quite a long article. Little to remark, mostly minor points:

• Suzanne Rachel Flore Lenglen[6] -- Keep the lead free from references. If you add birthname = to the infobox you can add the ref there
  • I think it's typical to put this type of citation here. I've been told before not to put full names in the infobox when the only difference is that the person has middle name(s). Alternatively, I could write her full name at the start of the "Early life" section and cite it there? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Both methods would do the job. You can choose or do both at the same time. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Moved to the early life section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• 8 Grand Slam singles titles, 21 in total, and 10 other World Championship titles.[c] -- this is confusing me. This feels like too much detail for the lead. Can't we just say 21 titles in total, of which 8 Grand Slam singles? And just leave all the detail and footnote for the body of the article.
  • Re-worded to: "winning 8 Grand Slam titles in singles and 21 in total. She also had 4 other World Championship titles in singles and 10 in total." The singles count is more important than the total. The World Championship titles are separate ("sort of", it's confusing). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• In doubles, she was undefeated with her usual partner Elizabeth Ryan -- they were defeated the first time they played, so don't think we can say it like this
  • Handicap events don't count and are more like exhibition matches. (Also, "doubles" is a different discipline than "handicap doubles".) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • OK, but then I would recommend you add a note further down where you describe the handicap doubles event in Monte Carlo, explaining that handicap matches don't count. As it stands to the uninformed reader it looks contradictionary. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Added! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• triple crown -- I would explain what that means rather than depend on the link
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• What is missing in the first paragraph is her number of titles in the doubles and mixed doubles, and the number of Grand Slams of each.
  • The 21 in total means 21 between singles, doubles, and mixed doubles. Changed the wording of that sentence to clarify that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Lenglen's father attended tournaments on the Riviera circuit, where the world's best players competed in the first half of the year. -- the word tennis should go in here somewhere
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• was to Suzanne Amblard -- was to Amblard
  • There were two Amblards. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Her volleying ability was instrumental -- according to whom?
  • The book states it as a fact. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• after her partner suffered an ankle injury -- who was that?
  • It wasn't anyone important. In the interest of space, I left out all of her doubles and mixed doubles partners who were only mentioned once, and weren't particularly significant. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The final was the shortest in Wimbledon history -- is it still?
  • Yes, changed "was" to "remains". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• signed a $50,000 contract -- what's this in today's $?
  • The book doesn't convert to a present-day value. I think it would be WP:OR (and subjective) to do it myself. The comparison to Babe Ruth's salary is meant to put it into context. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I have seen a few FACs converting old money into current. There is a standard way of doing it, although I have never used it myself. I will have a look later to try and find it, but perhaps some of the other reviewers or coordinators could enlighten us. Edwininlondon (talk) 07:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Found it. There is a template for this: Template:Inflation Edwininlondon (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Cool! Added, thanks!! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
• an offer of 200,000 francs -- give conversion to today's $ so we can compare with later offer
  • I put the conversion in a note. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• a one set match -- a one-set match?
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• 4000 .. 13,000 -- is it a conscious decision to use , in the latter but not in the former? Would be nicer to have a , in all big numbers throughout the article I think
  • Standardized. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• in 1927 and kept that ranking through the end of 1933 and nine of the next twelve years -- next is a bit ambiguous: is it from 1933 onwards?
  • Rephrased to "kept that ranking for the next six years and nine of the next twelve overall until 1938" (It's from 1927 though 1938.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Lenglen completed three Wimbledon triple crowns – winning the singles, doubles, and mixed doubles events at a tournament in the same year -- while I agree the term should be explained, this is way too late. Should be at the first use of the term in the lead and then again the first use in the body
  • Repeated the definition at the first instance in the body. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• including the 1919 Wimbledon final against Dorothea Lambert Chambers -- use last name only if person already introduced
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• nd her first match against Molla Mallory, -- same
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• at a cost of up to 500 francs -- give conversion to today's $
  • Repeated the conversion in a note. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• equivalent to about $44 in the United States -- not sure if this is today's $
  • clarified "then". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• one in 1947 another from 1950 to 1951 -- add a comma?
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Gibson played in a series of warmup matches for the Harlem Globetrotters, an exhibition basketball team in the United States. -- while interesting, I think we're straying off topic here.
  • I think if I only clarify what Betz did, the reader would wonder what Gibson did. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• short-sleeved and calf-length pleated blouse -- I'm the opposite of a fashion expert but I thought blouse is for the top, quite far removed from the calf
  • Good catch! It should be "skirt". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Performance timelines -- I'm not sure what a W means that is not in green. The legend does not explain the colour coding
  • Added an explanation below the key. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Books: a few publishers are missing location of publisher
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 22:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• The one bigger issue I have is about the overall use of references: It is far easier for anyone doing a source review if you put more specific references throughout the paragraph, instead of just at the end of a dozen sentences. For example, [24][25]: these page ranges are quite wide. Better to make them more specific. But check other paragraphs as well.
  • Split up a bunch of these. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

That's it from me. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 13:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Edwininlondon! I replied to everything above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I Support. Nice work. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• File:Suzanne_Lenglen_1922_(instant)_(cropped)_3.jpg needs a US tag
  • Fixed the tags on this one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• File:Match_of_the_Century_-_False_Ending.jpeg: there's some discussion of the significance of this photo in the image description, but the article itself, not so much. Suggest switching to the generic fair-use tag.
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• File:Suzanne_lenglen_1920.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Switched to just the PD-anon-1923 tag. (The authors Herbert Fox and/or Frederic Glover have unknown death dates.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Okay, but there is an author credit to a different partnership? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I realized I meant to tag it as PD-1923 / PD-US-expired (fixed that!). Maull and Fox were succeeded by H. Fox and Glover, but the company name stayed the same. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:13, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

It seems like the sources are consistently formatted. Is Collins, Bud the same as Bud Collins? Same for Helen Hull Jacobs and Helen Jacobs? As far as I can tell the sources seem reliable but this isn't my area of expertise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, did you want them linked? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

iff they are the same person, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Linked those, and a few others. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems like this passes, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 16 October 2021 [90].

---

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The British 2nd Division was initially formed in 1809, to serve during the Peninsular War. After the conclusion of fighting, it was stood down. This pattern would follow until the end of the century. New divisions were formed to fight at Waterloo (were it played an important role in the defeat of the final French attack of the day), and again formed to fight in the Crimean War. Several other similarly numbered divisions were formed during the century, but were not acknowledged as being part of the division's lineage by Everard Wyrall who wrote the division's First World War history (passing mention has been made to each of these formations, but there is not detailed campaign history). The final ad hoc division was raised to fight in the Second Boer War, where it fought or was present during most of the major battles in the Relief of Ladysmith. In 1902, it became a permanent formation within the structure of the British Army. It went on to fight in France in the First and the Second World Wars, and also fought in Burma during the latter. During the Cold War, it formed part of the British Army of the Rhine in Germany and became an armoured formation. The final decades of the division's history were based within the United Kingdom as a training formation. The article has had the GoCE give it a pass, and has gone through the GA and A-Class reviews. The article is supplemented by three lists that detail the commanding officers, orders of battle, and Victoria Cross winners. The latter two are featured lists, and the list for the commanding officers is currently going through the featured list review process. This is a large article, not 100 per cent confident that it will pass, but here we go!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

• Citations: there are several hyphens, rather than en dashes, in page ranges; there are p. and pp, errors, eg cites 163 and 157. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for that. I have gone though the citations, and tried to fix the various ones that were not up to snuff. Hopefully, caught them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Cites 202, 203, 204: are there really pages numbered I and III?

The report is broken up into chapters. Each page denotes the chapter and the page number. Each chapter starts the page count afresh. Please see: http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-181-c-21.pdf

• Further reading:

• Three works have no publisher location.

• I have entered two, unable to locate the third (per below)

• One has no ISBN/OCLC.

• I have not been able to locate either for this work. Per the IWM, the publication location is not mentioned and it is in a spiral binding. This makes me think that it was an internally generated small print document made for that particular veteran's association, and the IWM has a copy and that's about it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question. Chapters should be shown as "|chapter=" in the mark up, now as pages. eg

Koon, Sam (2015) [2011]. "Phalanx and Legion: the "Face" of Punic War Battle". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. pp. 77–94. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4.

I would generally do that if it was some sort of anthology, but in this case it is single report published together under the single department head. I note that sfn|Mason|1975|chapter=I|p=22 will not work; its one or the other.

Are you suggesting several entries, such as:

• Mason, Roy (1975a). "Chapter I: The Defence Review". CAB 129/181/21: C (75) 21 Statement on the Defence Estimates 1975. Retrieved 28 October 2019. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
• Mason, Roy (1975b). "Chapter III: Combat Forces, Deployment, Operations and Exercises". CAB 129/181/21: C (75) 21 Statement on the Defence Estimates 1975. Retrieved 28 October 2019. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)

I just want to clarify, as I am little confused and want to proceed forward as best as I can.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It is usual to give page ranges for individual chapters. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have updated the article per the above (including the page range).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Having done this much, I may as well recuse and complete the source review.

• The two Roy works need publisher locations.

  AddedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Cumulative Effect of Cuts ..., on what basis are you listing it under S?

  I think I placed it here, due to the cite using a bit of shorthand with the "Second Report of the Expenditure Committee". I have moved it to its alphabetical place, considering it starts with "The" as a result of the full title". Advisable to rename the inline cite?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Palmer et al: the title should be in title case.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "This website includes photographs of the weathered memorial and faded central red star". Suggest → 'This website includes photographs of the [specify which] memorial.'

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Lionel Ellis, who wrote the volume focused on the BEF in France for the History of the Second World War, wrote the division" Is it possible to avoid using "wrote" twice in the sentence?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• I have spotted at least one p./pp. error. Could you recheck.

  I have gone back over them, and I dont see it. Clearly I am overlooking it, but could you be so kind to point it out?

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I cant thank you enough! After seeing what change you made, I went and looked at the prior version and it still took me a while to manually spot it, even knowing what I was looking for. Don't know why it caused me such grief!

EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• EnigmaMcmxc, just a reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you for the reminder, I have attempted to address the remaining points that you brought-up.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

I supported this article at A-class and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment and supportEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Just flagging that licensing issues have been addressed but captions are still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• I'll be honest and say I am complete crap at things like this! I have gone through, and tried to get them? Hopefully, I succeeded!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Check that all captions are appropriately cited - for example McDermond seems to be mentioned only in caption
• Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
• File:Sir_Frederick_Adam_by_William_Salter.jpg: when and where was this first published?

  I will see if I can dig up some publication info. Prior to that though, doesn't the UK PD+100 in addition to the US-PD via point 3 (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) factor in?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  I found several references to the piece of artwork in works dated to the 1800s, but they did not have an actual reproduction of it. The earliest I found, is in a NPG catalogue from 1981. Based off that and the updated tags, I believe it meets points 1, 2, and 3 for US PD in addition to UK PD. Hopefully, that addresses this one?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Ditto File:John_McDermond_Saving_Colonel_Haly_by_Louis_William_Desanges_(c._1900).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Likewise, not sure when it was first published. However, I have found that it was published prior to the 1996. So I believe the US/UK PD tags cover points 1, 2, and 3. Look forward to additional feedback on these two.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  For both of these, was there a copyright notice in the publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  Unless I have missed something, the NPG collection does not state the copyright status of the works shown. In the acknowledgement section, it provides a thank you to all "public and private" owners. For the Adam's portrait, it does not mention anything specific, and seems to imply that it was in a private collection until 1929, when it was donated to the NPG. As for the McDermond painting, the article does not include any information on the copyright status of the work. The journal states on the backpage that "authors are expected to seek reproduction permission themselves". Other than mentions that the paintings exist, I have not been able to find anything to state they were published prior to these works (although I am not 100 per cent that these are the first time they were both published).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Publication means when it was made available to the public. In the case of an artwork, when it was donated to the NPG counts as publication. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I am not sure if it counts, but the National Army Museum states that they acquired the McDermond (link to painting updated, as there was duplicate copies on the commons) was acquired in 1958 when it was gifted to them by Wantage Urban District Council (the council became defunct in the 1970s).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  To be clear, display does not count as publication for US copyright purposes: see definition. The reason I ask about copyright notice is per point 2 of the URAA tag - "published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Wouldn't the lack of copyright info therefore cover point 2?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  Yep! Just wanted to make note that the donation did not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

An interesting article, packing a good deal of information into its 8,000 words, but the prose is not, in my view, up to FA standard. Some suggestions for improving it:

• I notice some odd spellings. Why use the Americanism "defense" instead of the British "defence"? You need to spell manoeuvre/manoeuver consistently, the adjectival "war time" instead of "wartime" looks odd, and I assume "Japanase" is merely a typo.

  Typo fixed, use of manoeuvre made consistent, and the defence issue addressed. If you do note any additional Americanisms, please point them out!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• the United Kingdom – you insist on spelling out the name at each mention (28 times), which seems odd – and a little obtrusive – as you use BEF, BAOR etc at second and later mentions of those entities.

  I have went though, and it has not only used a mere two times within the prose. I have either abbreviated the rest, tweaked the prose, or changed for British Empire etc as needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "However, only two such formations…" – this is the first of eight "howevers" in the article, most of which add nothing of value to the reader and just clog up the prose.

  I have zapped the majorityEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "…was the brigade. These consisted of…" – crashing of gears changing from singular to plural.

  I have reworded this part. Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Historian Clive Ponting…" – rather clunky false title, something you generally avoid elsewhere in the text.

  False titles eliminated. I have moved any descriptive into a clause after introducing them, as naming their profession has been a request during prior reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a similar organisation … as used by the Prussian Army" – not very good English, I think. Perhaps something on the lines of a similar organisation … to that used by the Prussian Army"?

  I have updated the sentence per your comment, and made a further change to the followingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Prior to the fighting", without going as far as Fowler who calls "prior to" "incongruous" when used as it is used here, I still wonder why a plain "before" wouldn't do here and later.

  Fair enough, changes madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Commenced" – a genteelism: a plain "began" or "started" would be stronger.

  The later has been used as a replacementEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "counterattack" (here and later) – the OED, Chambers and Collins all hyphenate "counter-attack".

  All updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to retake Deville Wood that had been captured and then lost to a German counterattack" – Here and later there is some failure to distinguish between "restrictive" (i.e. defining) and "non-restrictive" (i.e. descriptive) clauses. It's the difference between "reviews that are pedantic are a pain" – which is possibly true – and "reviews, which are pedantic, are a pain" which means all reviews are pedantic, and is patently untrue. This sentence needs a non-restrictive construction: "to retake Deville Wood, which had been…".

  I think I have fixed this!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the Battle of Ancre that started on 12 November" – as opposed to the Battle of Ancre that didn't start on 12 November? Another restrictive clause that needs to be non-restrictive: "the Battle of Ancre, which started on 12 November"

  A few changes have been made based off this suggestion. I hope they improved the wording, rather than make more problems!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "This included significant fighting – what did it signify, exactly? You mean "heavy" or some such adjective.

  After rechecking the source, I was attempting to highlight that these two events were the division's main actions during the fighting. Does the rewording work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Notably, one battery … with a notable" – a bit much too notability?

  I have reworded the former sentence, and left the latter intact. I hope the change is okay?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Wyrall noted some of the division's old hands had last marched" – not grammatically wrong, but could do with a "that" after noted. See p. 624 here (the link is to the second (1966) edition of Fowler, but the current (2015) edition, which is not accessible online, follows similar precepts).

  I have made the suggested tweak, and thank you for the linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "per the Allied Dyle Plan" – The old advice "prefer good English to bad Latin" applies here. Replacing the "per" with something in English such as "in accordance with" would make for better reading.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "declared war on Germany in response to their invasion of Poland" – singular noun (Germany) with plural pronoun (they).

  I think I have addressed this one nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Despite achieving tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced the BEF to withdraw…" – a dangling participle. The wording makes "strategic developments" the subject of the sentence, though you intend the subject to be the BEF. Something on the lines of "Although the BEF achieved tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced it to withdraw" would be better.

  Tweaks madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The fighting provided the division with the dubious honour of having the highest casualties" – WP:EDITORIAL unless you have a direct quote for "dubious honour".

  Editorial removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Lionel Ellis, who authored the volume" – "authored"? Why not a plain "wrote", or "Lionel Ellis, author of the volume"? Likewise for John Nott, later.

  Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "It had been intended for the division to reinforce the British Eighth Army" – does one "intend for", rather than "intend that"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "but no move took place as a result of the successful Second Battle of El Alamein" – I think I see what this means – the move was called off as a consequence of the victory at Alamein – but the sentence is ambiguous as it stands.

  I have tweaked this portion of the article, and expanded a little. I hope the changes are more clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The 2nd Division spent 1942 through 1944 training" – unexpected and not particularly welcome Americanism in a BrE article. "through" should be "to", surely?

  Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a proposed landing that would take place Rangoon" – a preposition seems to be missing after "place".

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The availability of British infantry within India was scarce" – can availability be scarce? Something might be scarce or its availability restricted but I'm not sure you can roll the two phrases into one.

  Opted for the latter, hope that worksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "In order to maintain the division in the field" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get quite exercised about "in order to", insisting it should be just "to". It doesn't bother me, but I mention it for your consideration.

  It does simplify it, so tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "3,500 British soldiers, of which 2,500 were dispatched" – "which" seems an odd word here: one might expect "whom".

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "forces that were not going to be utilised" – Fowler calls "utilise" instead of "use" "an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word".

  Less pretentious edit made :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "were selected to be relieved, due to the increasing shortage of British manpower": In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

  Played it safe with the latter optionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• the increasing shortage of British manpower in Asia that impeded the ability to maintain them at full strength – another "that" restrictive clause where you mean a "which," non-restrictive one. As it stands the sentence means that there was at least one other manpower shortage that did something else.

  I have replaced the "that" with a "which", and have also moved a comma. I think this should flow and read betterEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "to repatriate soldiers, who had served in Asia for at least three years and eight months, back to the United Kingdom..." – Contrariwise, the commas here turn what is clearly meant to be a restrictive clause into a non-restrictive one. Blitzing the commas will do the trick.

  Commas removed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "the defence of Western Europe from the Soviet Union" – does one defend something from something rather than against?

  Sentence tweaked, hopefully I didn't go a little overboard when it could have been a simpler fix?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The historian Marc Donald DeVore argued the politically forced change" – another place where a "that" seems called for.

  Missing "that" addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "Territorial Army personnel that would arrive from the United Kingdom" – "that" isn't wrong, but isn't it more usual to use "who" when referring to people?

  Switched to "who"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The reforms envisioned" – do reforms envision things? And is "envision" a fancy way of saying "envisage"? And is "envisage" a fancy way of saying "foresee" or "intend" or some such?

  Defancified x2: intended it isEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "but early training found this to be impractical" – "showed" rather than "found"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "a flexible task force that would be formed by the GOC" – you need to tell us what a GOC is, or provide a blue link.

  Full title now included, along with blue linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• "allowed the GOC to tailor their force" – singular noun with plural pronoun. No need to be frightened of using "his" here, as everyone concerned was a man.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• This was indicated via two white stars" – a plain "by" instead of "via"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and I really appreciate your comments to help whip the article into shape. I have started working my way through them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have tried to address the remaining comments that you made. I really appreciate the assistance, and look forward to further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

My apologies! I neglected to put this review on my watch-list and promptly forgot about it. I am impressed with the thorough responses to my long list of quibbles, and am now happy to withdraw my reservations about the prose of the article. I know too little about the substance to comment on that, and leave it to more expert reviewers to make their judgements, but as far as the prose and presentation go, I am happy to support the promotion of the article to FA. Tim riley talk 19:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries, and thank you!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Harry

Mainly focusing on prose. I'm not finding a lot to criticise.

• acquired the nickname: the "Observing Division" I don't think the colon is necessary here and I generally dislike colons in prose.

  What colon? Now, removed! :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Try to avoid passive voice (eg, A further 516 casualties were suffered)

  This particular example has been rewordedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• The fighting had cost 1,320 casualties and included Stewart I think you mean Stewart was included in the casualties, not (just) in the fighting.

  I changed this sentence up, so it should read correctly as you indicatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oman wrote he was a "splendid fighting man if a careless and tiresome subordinate" Is this really relevant to the division? It seems to me it would be better in Stewart's biography.

  Quite, and removed from this articleEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• described him as "the only British commander with even the remotest experience of European war", for his service in the Peninsular War doesn't quite make sense to me. Would "based on" (or similar) work better than "for"?

  Tweaked per your recommendation

• Notably, George V, and the Prince of Wales – the future Edward VIII – , reviewed the division on 3 December. Why is this notable? Royal inspections of division weren't especially uncommon, were they? Also, I'd use parentheses to avoid having the comma after the dash. And you use the adjective "notable" quite a bit through the article, which gets repetitive and is arguable editorialising (we shouldn't be telling the reader what the most important pieces of information are).

  I have notably going through and tried to get rid of quite a notable number of my notables! Your right about royal inspections not being uncommon, although the POW touring the trenches was something new that happened. Although, whenever the king shows up to inspect a unit or formation, it always seems to be a standout moment within the sources.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• "fighting divisions with such fine records as that held by the 2nd Division were not allowed long out of the line" You need a ref straight after a direct quote.

  I would, generally, argue that it should be at the end of the sentence when incorporated. But, I have split up what was wrote, and moved the cites etc. to address your point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• You have a lot of short sentences, usually of the form "this caused ...", "this was ..." etc. Try to vary it to keep the reader's attention if they're reading the whole thing. Likewise the ", with" construction to join two parts of a sentence, which is also frowned upon in formal prose.
• However, the city was liberated no need for the "however"; nothing is being contradicted

  I have gone through and made various tweaks. I think my major problem was bogging down in trying to essentially provide a large list of actions that were fought. Hopefully, some of the changes I have made have been for the better!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• The Mason Review, a Government white paper that outlined a new defence policy, was published during his tenure that's somewhat obvious from it being named after him, but the passive voice makes it sound like something that happened accidentally; you could distil this down and eliminate the passive voice with "he authored the Mason Review in 1975".
• Most of the last two paragraphs from "The post-war and Cold War period" feels off-topic for the division article. I'd suggest distilling these down to the bits most relevant to the 2nd and putting that into one paragraph. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  I have boiled down those two paragraphs, which include a reword on the Mason Review, and incorporated some of that text into the section about the 2nd Armoured Division. In the spirit of the review, text was lost, but it is now more efficient?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and comments. I have made various edits based off your notes, and attempted to address all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  @HJ Mitchell:: A gentle reminder that I have attempted to address your concerns :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  Many apologies. I'd forgotten to return to this. I'm satisfied that you've addressed my comments, so (pending TRM confirming that his prose/MoS concerns have been addressed) I support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "al formations bearing the name 2nd Division were formed. Only two such formations..." lots of "form" here reads mildly repetitively to me.

  Some tweaks made hereEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "into Boer territory" could link Boers.

  Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Also, for non-experts, Guerrilla warfare could be linked.

  Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "division moved to Scotland" you said expressly where in England it was located, where in Scotland?

  Location in Scotland addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• I know the article is about the 2nd Infantry Division but "division" is used 368 times in the article including 29 times in the Peninsular War section alone. I may be speaking out of turn but is there literally any other way of referencing the unit will remaining unambiguous without saying "division"?

  Tried to alternative things in the lead a little, but I am open to suggestions. Off the top of my head, early in the morning and with no a lot of sleep, one can only think of "it" and "formation" as viable alternatives.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the Battle of Vittoria" our article calls is the Battle of Vitoria?

  I have switched this up. I am not sure why, but Oman and a lot of other English sources (though to present day) spell the town with two 't's. I have noted the same with some German related sources. I am not sure if this is a typo that 'stuck', an English "alternative" spelling, or if the town was renamed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• "on 1 July.[32] On 7 July" repetitive.

  Tweak madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Everard Wyrall, the" redlinked in the main body but not in the lead?

  Additional link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "On 28 July 1914, the First World War began. On 4 August" could merge, i.e. "On 28 July 1914, the First World War began, and a week later..."

  Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the Nivelle Offensive" I think there's been a general agreement that "Offensive" is no longer capitalised in this kind of usage.

  Link piped to drop the capitalEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• " of Amiens. So began" two mini-sentences again, I would once again recommend a merge.

  MergedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "The strategic situation..." that caption is a fragment so no full stop.

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the "python" scheme" why was it called that?

  I have consulted several sources, and I have not seen any particular reason given for the name. As far as I am aware, it is not an abbreviation and is just a meaningless codename.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "strength.[193][192][197] " ref order.

  Ref ordered updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and Territorial Army" link.

  Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "the 1981 Defence White Paper. It," this doesn't appear to be italicised in our own article, is it really considered a work or is it more of a pamphlet?

  I have dropped the italicsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "16–18,000 men" I know what you mean, but should this really be 16,000–18,000 men?

  I would of argued the former, but I have tweaked it per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "262ff.." one too many full stops.

  I have removed the full stop from inside the template, so that only one will now displayEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Jan.-Sept" needs spaced en-dash, and not sure why some of the months are given here as abbreviations and other are not?

  En-dash added. The titles follow the layout used in each of the works. No idea why the earlier volumes abbreviate the latter do not.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "1815-1914" en-dash.
• "1854-1856" likewise.
• "1901-1903" ditto.

  All of the above tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "1976-7 " ditto (and sure that's not 77?)

  Tweaked, and yes it should have been "77" after a quick double checkingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

• "outlining the 2nd Division" and "First World War memorial" ... both need full stops.

  Periods addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and comments. I have a bandaged-up hand, which is slowing my typing so it may be a little longer than usual to address these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  No problem, and take your time. I hope your hand recovers soon! Feel free to ping me once you're done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  @The Rambling Man:: Thank you. I have gone through the article and tried to address your remaining concerns, or have left comments above for you.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  No problem, I'm happy with the updates you've made and have no further reason not to support the nomination. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 October 2021 [91].

---

Melville Fuller

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Chief Justice Melville Fuller was, by all accounts, a competent administrator and a kind man, but he also ended up on the wrong side of some of the worst decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever rendered. Leading a conservative court in an era of change, the mustachioed jurist struck down the federal income tax, endorsed racial segregation, and turned laissez-faire into a constitutional mandate. Needless to say, the legal academy hasn't looked too favorably upon his tenure: despite recent attempts to rehabilitate his reputation, Fuller remains inextricably linked with what one scholar called "a far-off and bygone judicial age". Yet that age – one in which an increasingly conservative judiciary faced off against an increasingly progressive society – perhaps bears some similiarities to our own. The story of Melville Weston Fuller remains as relevant today as ever.

I've been working on this article for the better part of a year, and I'm confident it's ready to face the rigors of FAC. Hog Farm reviewed it for GAN in July; since then, it's been extensively expanded (by yours truly), carefully copyedited (by the GOCE), and prudently peer-reviewed (by the incomparable Tim riley). My heartfelt thanks go out to all who have helped improve this article. I eagerly anticipate all comments, and I hope you enjoy reviewing the article as much as I enjoyed writing it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Just booking my place. I hope to look in tomorrow to add my considered views after another, post-PR, perusal. ("Incomparable", forsooth! Some might replace the "arable" with "etent" or "rehensible".) – Tim riley talk 20:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My quibbles were dealt with at PR. I have just finished rereading the article in its post-PR state and have seen nothing new to quibble about. The content shows every sign of being balanced, the proportions are sensible, the sources look good, varied and fairly recent on the whole, the illustrations are well chosen and the prose is fine. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• Why is File:CJ_Fuller.tif paged? When and where was this first published?

• I'm not sure how it got paged, nor do I know how to un-page it. Is that a problem? (It doesn't seem to be doing any harm.) I've clarified the licensing: the LoC gives a 1908 copyright date, so all should be well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:Melville_Fuller_Signature.svg: is this copyright ineligible, or copyright expired?

• Per Commons, ordinary signatures like this one are copyright-ineligible under US law. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Okay, so can the tagging be changed to reflect that? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Done. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:Melville_Weston_Fuller,_Chief_Justice,_Supreme_Court,_three-quarter_length_portrait,_seated,_facing_right_LCCN97502838.tif: the author credit indicates that he died in 1952, which was less than 70 years ago

• I've adjusted the licensing tag. Since it was registered with the Copyright Office in 1899, the copyright has long since expired. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:The_Fuller_Court.jpg: when and where was this first published?

• Registered with the Copyright Office in 1899, per this, pg. 492. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• File:08_Melville_W._Fuller_bust,_US_Supreme_Court.jpg: what's the copyright of the photograph? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• The original upload included a pd-self tag, which I've since added back. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• Consider adding the year of the decisions you cite in parentheses.

• I've added years to the lead, which I think was the only place missing them. Let me know if you see any others without them.

• "He helped develop a gerrymandered system for congressional apportionment, and he supported provisions prohibiting African-Americans from voting or settling in the state." Would this benefit from context? Such systems were routine a century before Baker v. Carr and the provisions regarding African-Americans presumably had support that extended well beyond Fuller.

• I've clarified that the provisions about African-Americans were supported by Democrats more broadly. Regarding gerrymandering, my source says only that Fuller was "instrumental in framing a blatantly partisan congressional apportionment scheme", so I presume that it was a bit more extreme than one's workaday gerrymander (and that Fuller in particular was responsible for it).

• "a ban on the printing of paper money." By banks or by the federal government (i.e. the new greenbacks that were being issued to finance the war)? (see also the mention of his views in the 1870s)

• Done.

More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• " The dissenters felt the decision was foreclosed by the Court's past holdings, and each one decried the majority's perceived infidelity to precedent." You're really saying the same thing twice here. I think you say it better when you focus on precedent, so I would rewrite just to say that the dissenters felt the court was not following its precedent.

• Done.

• "marked only the third time in American history that a Supreme Court decision was reversed via constitutional amendment.[29]: 59  " Less impressive than it sounds when you consider that the Income Tax Amendment was only the sixth since there had been a Supreme Court, and so three of the six amendments (arguably five) were passed to reverse Supreme Court decisions. I would strike the word "only".

• I see what you mean, but I suppose what I'm trying to say is that, out of thousands of decisions rendered over the preceding 120 years, this was only the third deemed sufficiently egregious to merit reversal via amendment. For what it's worth, my source expressly says that "the decision became only the third of four to be directly overturned by constitutional amendment". I think I'll keep it as is, although I'm glad to change it if you feel strongly about it.

• " Most modern legal scholars believe Pollock was wrongly decided" This is from a 2014 paper relying on papers from 1998 and 1999. Can such broad statement, that may or may not be dated, be stated in this way? It may become dated even if it isn't already.

• I've attributed the statement and given it a date, just to be safe.

• "the Sherman Act, an 1890 federal antitrust law that outlawed monopolies" Not that I'm aware. "Innocent monopolies" were still allowed.

• I've removed "that outlawed monopolies" altogether, since the word "antitrust" says all that needs to be said.

• What is "the legal academy"?

• Legal scholars as an institution: see [92] [93].

• "The Court's expansive Commerce Clause cases during the New Deal period essentially abrogated Knight." I might say "decisions" for "cases"

• Done.

• " In Late Corporation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. United States (1890)," It might be worth noting somewhere that Utah remained a territory until 1896. You've just come off a discussion of the Insular Cases without a paragraph break.

• Clarified.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for these very helpful comments, Wehwalt: I appreciate it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• The only other thing I can think of is can something be said about contemporary reaction at his death?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Good idea: I've added a sentence. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Probably insincere on the part of both TR and Taft, who wanted Fuller dead years before so Taft could have the job ... but fine.

• Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - pass

Will do one (hopefully tomorrow). Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Sources are all reliable
• All of the further reading items are used as sources. Since further reading is generally for items not included as sources, I don't think they need to be listed there

• Removed. MOS:FURTHER seems to permit duplication when (as here) "the References section is too long for a reader to use as part of a general reading list", but since both you and Tim riley have independently raised the point I'm glad to just take it out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing stands out as problematic with the formatting

Spot checks coming soon. Hog Farm _Talk 05:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

• "The Wong Kim Ark decision has taken on additional significance as prominent Republican politicians, including Donald Trump, have called for the reversal of birthright citizenship" - checks out
• "During his confirmation, Fuller's mustache produced what law professor Todd Peppers called "a curious national anxiety"" - checks out
• "and legal historian Edward A. Purcell Jr. said that it "helped create a newly powerful and activist federal judiciary that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century and continued to operate into the twenty-first" - checks out
• "A 1993 survey of judges and legal academics found that Fuller's reputation, while still categorized as "average", had risen from the level recorded in a 1970 assessment." - checks out

No issues with source-text integrity or copyright noted. Hog Farm _Talk 23:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Hog Farm – much appreciated! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Kavyansh.Singh

• "However, he opposed the Lincoln Administration's handling of the war" – 'Lincoln Administration' could be linked to Presidency of Abraham Lincoln
  • Done.
• "including William M. Evarts of New York, Nevada's William Morris Stewart, and" – looks a bit odd while reading. Maybe move Nevada after Stewart's name.
  • Done.
• "Cullom demanded an immediate vote, fearing that delay on Fuller's nomination could harm Republicans' prospects of winning Illinois" – Probably worth mentioning that Republicans did win Illinois in the 1888 election.
  • Somewhat surprisingly, none of my sources mention this, so I don't really feel comfortable mentioning it directly (per WP:OR; WP:SYNTH, etc.). Here's a compromise: I've linked 1888 United States presidential election in Illinois, so curious readers can investigate on their own.
    • That works. The more interesting part about this is that Benjamin Harrison (Republican nominee) won Illinois by just 2.9%. The last Democrat to carry Illinois was James Buchanan in 1856. (please bear with me if I talk too much about elections) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• Found nothing else which needs to be addressed. Excellent work. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Kavyansh.Singh! Much appreciated. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I definitely support this article's promotion as a featured article. @Extraordinary Writ, honestly, I never thought that a biography of a Supreme Court chief justice could be so interesting! As a side note, will you be able to take a look at this FAC? Regardless, thanks a lot for your work on this article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the kind words, Kavyansh.Singh. I'll try to pay Daisy a visit in the next week or so: I've been pretty busy lately but I'll do my best. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Grapple X

I've combed over this one and am happy to support it; well-written, wonderful depth, and it does a great job of balancing biography with legacy. The only thing I could draw attention to, and it's certainly not a hindrance to me supporting this, is that we see the construction "damaged his historical reputation", or "harmful to his historical reputation", etc, a few times, although the section discussing his legacy paints the picture that his image hasn't so much been tarnished as it has just always been poor. Obviously if this is the verbiage of the sources then we should stick to it but if not, it may be worth looking at wordings that would denote that these decisions have shaped a poor reputation rather than harming a good one. Just a thought to consider and a subtle one at that. Good work on this article. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support, Grapple X. Good point regarding the "damaged his reputation" phrasings: I've replaced them with more accurate wordings (e.g. "has contributed significantly to his poor historical reputation"). Again, thanks! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2021 [94].

---

Ghostbusters

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Ghostbusters. It's a great film. Watch it. Wait. Not the 2016 film, also known as Ghostbusters. The good one. The 84 one. Watch that one. Then review here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The original Ghostbusters is a major horror-comedy classic. The Horror, The Horror (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Support by TheJoebro64

resolved

I'll get a review in sooner or later. Probably sooner. JOEBRO64 12:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC) I feel like the second paragraph reads a bit jumbled together with a high density of facts. I feel like it could be streamlined a bit? Maybe cut down on the initial time/space travel plot and rework "Ghostbusters was the first comedy film to employ expensive special effects. There was concern about the budget it would require..." as a single sentence. I think you should mention Belushi died in 1982 for context Competition for special effects studios among various films in development at the time meant part of the budget was used to co-found a new studio under Richard Edlund. I think this sentence could use some restructuring. "Under Richard Edlund" is unclear, and I think it's a bit too verbose and reads odd without mentioning that the studio is Boss Film Studios. Perhaps something like "Due to competition for special effects studios among various films in development at the time, Richard Edlund used part of the budget to help form Boss Film Studios, which used a combination of practical effects, miniatures, and puppets to deliver the ghoulish visuals." (I incorporated the last sentence as part of this because I think it flows better and is now active rather than passive voice) I'd add the years Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters came out in parenthesis This is just personal preference, but I don't think you need to explicitly call Ghostbusters II "a sequel" in the lede. I think it should be obvious to the reader that a movie called Ghostbusters II is a sequel to Ghostbusters. From the current sentence, you could easily just strike it ("Ghostbusters was followed in 1989 by a sequel, Ghostbusters II...") I think it should be clearer that Afterlife is a direct sequel to the 1984 movie and Ghostbusters II and not the 2016 one. Up to you how you want to do this but I think it's not exactly clear at the moment. My initial batch. Should have more as I read along. May be a bit slow over the weekend as I'm going on a retreat but I'll still try to comment regularly throughout, but so far this is looking very good. I have been making minor copyedits while I go that I assume are uncontroversial but just revert if you don't agree with them. JOEBRO64 20:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC) Done, you can see the changes here, thanks JB. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC) "I was writing a line for John, and [producer and talent agent] Bernie Brillstein called and said they just found him … We loved each other as brothers." I don't think the "we loved each other as brothers" part of this quote is necessary and/or adds anything. You already mention that Belushi and Akyroyd were close friends, which should convey the sentiment enough. Regarding the previous quote, I think it could be paraphrased. Something like "Aykroyd recalled that he was writing one of Belushi's lines when producer and talent agent Bernie Brillstein called and informed him of Belushi's death" "...$25–$30 million; different figures have been cited." Just for clarification: this means that sources provide different estimates, correct? "Given Hollywood's accounting practices, however, the film technically never made a profit for Universal to be owed a payment." This needs further elaboration as I am an accounting Neanderthal who doesn't understand what this means. Will keep going JOEBRO64 23:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC) Done all, I added a brief Hollywood accounting explanation, and yes different sources provide different estimates on the budget. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Hey TheJoebro64, Don't You (Forget About Me) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Haven't forgotten! Just working on another FAC right now where I have to add in some literary analysis which is extremely boring and tedious but I'm aiming to finish up by the weekend. I'll give Ghostbusters my full attention after. JOEBRO64 16:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC) Well that FAC passed. Now can give this my full undivided attention. JOEBRO64 03:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Good job on that btw, comic articles are a pain in the ass to promote. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your patience! Here comes some more: Is Aykroyd referring to scope creep (also known as kitchen sink syndrome) when he calls himself a "kitchen sink" writer? If so I think a link would be a nice. Do you think this is a good change? I did a test edit to see how it went and I think it reads better but I'm not 100% that it's grammatically correct. "He took the character's first name from a Hungarian refugee he attended school with and the surname of historian Oswald Spengler." sounds like it belongs in writing rather than casting? Same with the details of Hudson's role being cut down from the initial script. And that's the rest of the Production section. Not much but I'll get to Design later today. JOEBRO64 14:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Yes the way I read it is that he basically throws every idea he's got in there, which is how you end up with ghost exterminators traveling through dimensions to battle demons and ghosts, and then someone came in and cleared that all up. I've added the link. Yes I think that edit is fine, it read fine to me before but I think it may have been a bit informal a way of writing it. I've renamed the section "cast and characters". I think it's better having those notes mentioned alongside the cast/characters, particularly things like how Ramis designed the character because that read to me as something done after writing, similar to how Hudson's role was cut down the night before filming. I thought it flowed better from a chronological readability point, but hopefully by adding "characters" it makes the content more appropriate overall. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Looks good. JOEBRO64 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC) "The Marshmallow Man was fabricated and portrayed..." I think you should substitute a different word for "fabricated". I think it could be a bit confusing given the other, more common definition of "fabrication" "creating a puppet operated by tens of cables running..." The source says 10 to 20 cables were used, I'd say that instead because "tens of" sounds weird Is the No symbol image in Sets and logo necessary? The logo is already at the top of the article, and the No symbol in the section is facing the wrong way. Beginning to have fewer nitpicks as I go along, which is a good sign. This article is really well put-together, should finish pretty swiftly JOEBRO64 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC) Done the first two. The "No" image is, according to the designer, the correct way the Ghostbusters symbol is meant to be and the way it was designed because it initially had "Ghostbusters" written in the middle, but the text was removed for the poster and the image flipped for AMerican audiences, becoming the common symbol. The image was just to demonstrate how it was designed versus how it ended up. I could replace it with NFC of a set or something that might be more visually informative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC) I'm gonna finish this review tomorrow. Just been busy these past few days. JOEBRO64 02:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC) Any reason Critical response doesn't mention the publications the critics were writing for? I can understand it for notable critics like Ebert, but without a publication why the hell should I care about what Joseph Gelmis said about Ghostbusters? Not a terrible issue but the Critical response section could use a copyedit to avoid the "A said B" problem outlined in WP:RECEPTION "In 1984, the filmmakers were also sued by the makers of Casper the Friendly Ghost for $50 million and the destruction of the film." Not sure what "destruction of the film" means—did Casper's makers want all copies of the film destroyed? The Thematic analysis section is good though I'd add labels for people (cultural critic, author, etc.) to explain why we should care about their interpretations. Just me though. And that's it. This is an excellently-written article, and certainly an important one given this film's importance! I've made tons of miniscule changes while reading I assumed would be uncontroversial so these are my only remaining points. JOEBRO64 02:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC) TheJoebro64, I've tried to reword the reception section a bit,I've added labels in the themes section and clarified the legal Casper case as they wanted all copies of the film destroying (can you imagine if they'd won?). Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC) I've done a full rewrite of the reception section :) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Support

Bloody fantastic article. Keep up the good work DWB! JOEBRO64 01:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from 3E1I5S8B9RF7

Excellent article, really thoroughly sourced and informative. The only nitpick I have is the "Thematic analysis" section. Now, I know others practically imposed all these strange citations on you, just for the sake of including scientific journals. But it still sounds confusing to me at times:

• "Inequality and pollution" subsection. The ghosts, which were once human, are not acknowledged as such and are treated as a nuisance that the Ghostbusters transport to less desirable areas, similar to real-world gentrification... So, the interpretation is that ghosts are a symbol for the homeless and ethnic minorities? But when were ethnic minorities deported from New York? It sounds more like Clare means illegal immigrants.

Zoila Clark noted that concept art of an unused Chinatown ghost bore similarities to a stereotypical Chinese immigrant including long, braided hair and a triangular agricultural hat. Maybe to rename this subsection to "Inequality, immigrants and pollution"?

• "Addressing audiences and death" subsection. Vincent Canby said a film's profitability was dependent on addressing children who "can identify with a 40-year-old-man with a mid-life crisis and 40-year-old-men in midlife crises who long to fight pirates with cardboard cutlasses" What does this have to do with anything? "Addressing audiences" is kind of a strange title, is there any way to rename it?

I hope these will be clarified, but I support promoting this article nontheless.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Not "deported" but moved into areas where the better off don't want to be. I'm not American so I couldn't tell you the particular areas where that happens. I think the easiest explanation would be making areas too expensive to live in, so the existing inhabitants are moved to Harlem or Queens, not out of the country entirely. I'm trying to think of a better title for the last section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Resolved comments from Pamzeis (talk)

I will try my best not to screw this up. I have not read above comments so I apologise if I repeat anything; additionally, I have not watched this film so sorry for any obvious mistakes. Check for MOS:LQ issues American supernatural comedy film directed — WP:SEAOFBLUE? start a ghost-catching business in New York City. — does "New York City" need to be wikilinked? Based on his own fascination with spirituality, Aykroyd conceived Ghostbusters as a project for himself and John Belushi, in which they would adventure through time and space battling supernatural threats. — I'm confused what this means. For him and Belushi to star in? For him and Belushi to play a game in? Following Belushi's death in 1982, and with Aykroyd's concept deemed financially impractical, he was — "he" meaning Belushi or Aykroyd? that utters a single word — per WP:PLOTTENSE, I think, this should be in past tense. Ray and Egon research Zuul while Venkman — why two first names and one surname? then rewrote each other. — rewrote each other's scripts? I'll try to leave more in a bit and to not screw them up. Pamzeis (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC) You're not screwing them up, don't worry. I don't know if I can do much about the links to supernatural and comedy film, if I unlink them someone will inevitable re-link them. I've made changes per the rest of your comments, I think Venkman is just more commonly how he is referred to while the others are Ray and Egon, no one really calls them Stantz and Spengler, but I've changed it all to first names. Thanks for your comments. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, I was wondering if there was more to come, or if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC) Sorry! I forgot about this. More comments: Check for MOS:LQ issues. I know I said this last time but I can still see a few (e.g. "would have cost something like $200 million to make.", "reasonable.", etc.) Link "Peter Venkman", "Ray Stantz" and "Egon Spengler" at their first occurrence after the lead per MOS:DUPLINK Also link "Winston Zeddemore" and parapsychology in — unlink "parapsychology" per MOS:DUPLINK John Belushi, before Belushi's — could this possibly be rearranged to avoid repetition of "Belushi"? castmate, Bill Murray, who — I'm unsure of this but should "Bill Murray" be linked? was more serious in tone and was intended to be scary — I believe the second "was" is redundant in Studio City, Los Angeles and — add a MOS:GEOCOMMA after "Los Angeles" effects and a popular — I believe "a" should be removed for about two weeks — this is probably just my personal preference but "about" sounds unencyclopædic to me. Perhaps replace it with "approximately" or "roughly"? (If you agree with this, check for other instances too!) Ghostbusters, Aykroyd's was the heart, and Murray's was the mouth. — The "was"es sound weird to me. Should they be removed? fiction archetypes — I believe "archetype" should be linked the surname of historian — I believe "of" should be "from" Apart from the three main stars, Medjuck was largely responsible for casting the other roles. — I find "other" redundant as you've already said that Medjuck did not cast the main stars. began in New York City on — link "New York City" per MOS:DUPLINK Hopefully, these haven't been screwed up. Please ping me if I don't leave more comments by the 29th. Pamzeis (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, these edits have been done by myself, Aoba47 and Chompy Ace. I didn't link New York or Bill Murray because these already linked in the plot and cast list respectively. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC) Pinging Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC) As the film used practical effects, they needed skilled technicians who resided mainly in the city and soundstages that were non-existent in New York. — per MOS:TENSE, I believe "used" should be uses. However, since this will make the tense change in the middle of the sentence, I would suggest changing it to "Due to the film's use of practical effects, they needed skilled technicians who resided mainly in the city and soundstages that were non-existent in New York." One of the deleted scenes involved — this is nitpick-y but can "One of the" simply be "A" to be more concise? Bernstein's son Peter and David Spear — this may suggest David Spear is also Bernstein's son. Perhaps reword to "Peter, Bernstein's son, and David Spear" or "Peter Bernstein, Elmer's son, and David Spear"? Bernstein had previously scored several — which Bernstein? This included "Magic" → This includes "Magic" (MOS:TENSE) I think linking of puppet may be MOS:OVERLINK creature to homage their friend John Belushi — I do not understand why "their friend" is necessary as Belushi is talked about multiple times in the earlier sections, and it's obvious that he is their friend. Also, per MOS:SURNAME, omit "John". Bryan had to use a separate — nitpick-y but can we change "had to use" to used to be more concise? versions were made, a hollow — should the comma be a colon? technology was designed not to be — this is probably just my personal preference but, to me, "to not be" sounds more natural than "not to be". With the "Sets and logo" heading, could the words possibly be switched around (i.e. Logo and sets) as the logo is talked about first? the first hit for the studio — what does "hit" mean here? Right now, with it's vague meaning, it seems like puffery. The Box office section contradicts itself. The first paragraph says Ghostbusters was the second-highest grossing film behind Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom while the second says it was behind Beverly Hills That year saw the release of — 1984 or 1987? and tacky sight gags" Peter Travers — I think a comma is needed before "Peter Travers" described Ghostbusters as "irresistible nonsense" — perhaps add favourably or unfavourably before this as it's unclear whether this is positive or negative "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop fully his patented comic character. — missing a closing quotation mark commentaries by crewmembers — is there a missing space in "crewmembers"? That took a long time. I'll hopefully finish this review by the 2nd. Pamzeis (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, I've addressed your concerns in the edit here. Thank you again for taking the time to review this, I know it's a big article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC) ideology, in particular Reagan — I think a comma is needed after "particular" I'm a bit confused why "Death and immaturity" are grouped together as these two things (to my knowledge) have basically nothing to do with each other. So, um, yeah, why are these two grouped together? said that before Ghostbusters television — I think a comma is needed after "Ghostbusters" It’s an honor — per WP:', use a straight apostrophe ('), not a curly apostrophe (’) interviews from crew including — I think a comma is needed after "crew". Florida, that ran from — Really unsure about this one but I think "that" should be "which" the ninth greatest film of — I believe "ninth greatest" should be hyphenated critics (118 female, 135 male) — not sure why the genders are relevant here. unranked by Filmsite — I'm not really sure what this means. Did Filmsite consider ranking the film but not include it? Or was this a non-ranked list? Rotten Tomatoes. Rotten Tomatoes — can this be reworded to avoid repetition of "Rotten Tomatoes"? its release it was considered a box-office bomb — I believe there should be a comma after "release" I finally finished reading the article! You're probably tired of hearing me say "screw(ed) up" but I'm gonna say it again because I really hope I haven't screwed these up. Pamzeis (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC) Hi Pamzeis, I've made the necessary changes here. The gender breakdown on that critic reception section I just thought was interesting and showed it wasn't just a male-centric film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support — a throughly interesting read overall. I just realised I did not watch the film before review as told to do in the nomination statement because I am terrible at following instructions :P. I'll probably watch it sometime in the distant future... Best of luck with this article! Pamzeis (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Pamzeis!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review

• Some images are missing alt text
• File:Ghostbusters_1984_cast.png: because some of the source files use ShareAlike licenses, this can't be released CC0 since that license is not compatible
• File:Ghostbusters_1984_Elmer_Bernstein_Score_Sample.ogg: suggest elaborating on the purpose of use
• File:1959_Cadillac_Ecto-1_(12227773836).jpg: see commons:COM:VEHICLE
• File:Ghostbusters_Supanova_2014.jpg: see commons:COM:COSTUME
• File:Trump-WomensMarch_2017-1060343_(32298822942).jpg: what's the copyright status of the derivative sign? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Added alt text

I've added each individual licensing under individual headers. Is that sufficient?

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Expanded it a little bit.

That's better, but some of the details don't appear to be present in the article text - they could either be added there or citations can be added to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The info is in the article as far as I can see but I've added a reference to the embedded material. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

So if I'm reading that right, the car itself isn't copyrighted but the symbol would be, but because it's an insignificant size it is OK?

De minimis exceptions generally apply if the copyrighted component is incidental - for example, something in the background. That's not the case here - the logo is an essential component. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmm...I mean if the logo was absent, it wouldn't matter because it's not the point of the image so I don't know if it would be considered essential. It's certainly incidental to what is meant to be shown. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

The last sentence of that section says photos just showing people in cosplay is acceptable.

The situation is a bit more complicated than that - there has been legal input that costumes are potentially problematic in terms of copyright, although Commons has chosen to accept such images. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

So is it OK to use or not? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

On both this and the next point above: to be clear, this is a subjective judgment, and IANAL. That being said, I don't think these are okay given the information available. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't even know how you'd find that out so I've just removed it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Nikkimaria, is this one ok now? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  IMO there are two images of concern, but see comment of 26 September. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

How much concern though? Because based on the discussion above, I believe they are appropriate for their use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, it's a subjective issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, you'll have to decide if it can progress as is then or I need to remove the images. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• We are none of us copyright lawyers ... and the very need to write that is a danger signal. One of my roles as a FAC coordinator is to play safe with regards to ensuring that Wikipedia is not sued. I interpret - I am open to correction by the community on this - "Wikipedia's very best work" as including it being rock solid in terms of copyright - for both images and prose. I may well agree with you re the images PD being good enough, but my opinion is not that relevant; if one of our most experienced image reviewers, Nikkimaria, is saying "this is a subjective judgment, and IANAL" I don't see how I can let the images through. We may all agree that very probably the images will be fine, but I'm afraid that the bar is higher than that. Which is a shame, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from. Given that this is a fundemental issue and on the margin I am pinging in my more experienced colleague Ian Rose in case they wish to add any input or to over rule me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm actually going to jump back in and say, I don't think this is the way we should be framing this discussion. Even if the article's images were unambiguously non-free, it is highly unlikely we would get sued over it, for pragmatic reasons. But see commons:Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle; our image policies and practices are stricter than what we probably could "get away with". In this particular case, certainly with regards to the cosplay we do have legal advice that costumes are copyrightable. The car is a bit more complicated because of the combination of the logo and other non-utilitarian features with a (presumably) functional vehicle, so definitely an edge case, but again I'd err on the side of being more conservative in interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what Ian Rose says, but I do have to ask, why do we have these pictures if we're not allowed to use any of them? If a self-made protest banner is too much of a copyright issue, it seems like 90% of what is on Wikimedia should just be removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just noting I got the ping and will take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does not clean up itself. Sometimes things just get missed.

With respect to copyrights, IANAL but with File:1959 Cadillac Ecto-1 (12227773836).jpg, if the logo was the only issue then I'd say it falls under commons:COM:DEMINIMIS. But the rest of the vehicle also looks like it was customized (the huge antenna, the thingies on the car roof) to be a Ghostbusters car, and we are using it to illustrate a Ghostbusters car. I'd be inclined to treat the photo as a derivative work of a copyrighted design and thus not use it. File:Ghostbusters_Supanova_2014.jpg ... well, according to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay the issue is complex enough that I wouldn't definitively pass judgment on it myself. I note though that the costumes look like generic spacesuits with a logo on top, so I wonder if they are derived from an actual spacesuit. And if they are, this would be an argument that they are not copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, what a time sink... Okay, it seems to me that if the current licensing of the images on WP is correct then we shouldn't be having this discussion, so I'm gathering that the concern is that the licensing is inadequate, and that might well be the case. OTOH, using pictures of the car and the costumes (fan-worn) doesn't seem excessive in itself -- there are no other images of the car or costumes in the article -- and both are described in the text, thus the pictures don't seem to be merely decorative. So is there a case to change the licensing to fair use in either or both instances and keep them on that basis? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ian Rose, pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gog the Mild, Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have anything else to say. I am not convinced that these images would meet WP:NFCC#8 if used as fair use; they do not significantly increase the understanding of the article's topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Just making sure Gog the Mild, Nikkimaria saw this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I did - like JJE I don't have much to add to what's above. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• There is clearly not a consensus to promote with these images in the article. So they will need to be removed or the nomination withdrawn. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Right fine done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria just checking in that the image review is passed? (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding the sources, Nikkimaria are you satisfied that your concern from the previous FAC about an underuse of academic sources is resolved? I don't know much about the magazines but I think that Getty Images isn't a good source, I think they often get facts wrong. What makes Digital Spy, Gizmodo, /Film and io9 reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly academic sources available that are not cited - I would be interested in more information on how decisions were made about what to include versus not. I would also question the use of a master's thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

• DigitalSpy is owned by Hearst and is a major website with an about page and clear team listing. Gizmodo belongs to the same family as things like The AV Club and also has a clear about page with team, it's a major site. Slash Film has been checked and used in multiple of my previous recent FAs. It is another major specialist movie website with a clear and publicized team. Io9 is a subsite of Gizmodo and falls under the same explanation. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
• I included the requested academic materials, a lot of them don't actually talk about Ghostbusters, it might bring it up as an example of an 80s film or in relation to other films but does not discuss it in any sort of detail that I could include in the article. I searched through the Wikipedia Library as well for additional materials, most talk about the obvious corporate messages, only the odd one talks about something outthere like ghosts as pollution or immigration. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria / Jo-Jo Eumerus ?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

OK with respect to the sources I questioned, except for Getty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, forgot about Getty. I'll try to find an alternative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Replaced the Getty one Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Did you have a rationale on the thesis wrt SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

"Liz W. Faber is the Chair of Arts & Sciences at Labouré College. Her research focuses on American media, science fiction, gender, and computer history." I've argued against including people's essays in the previous FAC and was told it didn't matter, they're professionals. Well, she is a professional in a knowledgeable role. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Where is that quote from, and when? This source is from 2009. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• https://www.lizwfaber.com/
• https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=X7bZvIQAAAAJ&hl=en
• https://laboure.academia.edu/LizFaber
• https://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/the-computeras-voice
• https://www.linkedin.com/in/liz-faber-36462a15/

And it came from Google Scholar which is what I was told to use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Google Scholar is a search tool; it doesn't guarantee that everything you find will warrant inclusion. It appears that this individual is now a professional, but was not in 2009. Is there any evidence this thesis has had a significant scholarly influence? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

It says on her Linkedin she was a graduate research and teaching assistant in 2009. Is that not a professional position? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A post-graduate position does not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are supposed to understand these things when sourcing your prose well before FAC submission, not be asking reviewers to justify their MoS-based queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize profusely for not reading every single policy while reading the 2-300 sources necessary to write the article. I just did as instructed by including arbitrary essays from google scholar, I didn't realize there was a difference between one random essay and another. I've removed all mention of Liz Faber and consigned her to the waste bin of history and I've removed all pictures as requested. I think sometimes everyone could do with stepping back and remembering that we're volunteers, and writing an article of this scale, and doing it multiple times across multiple articles, is actually a lot of work and there is a difference between constructive criticism and "You should know all the policies before even nominating your article, you fool, how dare you question us". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I've removed the offending article, are we able to progress? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

That is fine with respect to that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild are we waiting for anything else? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

• Hi again Nikkimaria, is that a pass on the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  Hi Gog, I didn't do a full source review here, just queried that particular source. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Nikkimaria. Darkwarriorblake, no, it need s a source review. I will list it at requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, do you know how long it normally takes for someone to answer the source review requests? Is what Jo-Jo Eumerus did at the top of this section not a source review? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No, it varies. (Quite a bit.)

Doesn't look like it to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus, do your comments above constitute a source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRM

• "used part ..., which used a " repetitive.
• "its sequel series" I don't think you need to repeat "series" here.
• "in 2014. A 2016" repetitive.
• "for release in 2021" well it is 2021, so perhaps "late-November 2021"? And of course in a month this will need to be updated.
• "Delphi Productions" appears in the infobox but nowhere else.
• Similar comment for "Black Rhino".
• "investigating the paranormal" isn't linked but subsequently you link "a paranormal investigation"...
• "in the paranormal.[6][7] " this is linked here, but you've already used the word a couple of times in the plot section.
• "wrote the script, intending to star in it " not star in the script, star in the movie.
• "1982.[7][6] Aykroyd" ref order.
• "Price in March 1983. Price recounted" quick repeat, could merge this.
• "The film would require a big..." is this someone's opinion (Price?) as it's just a standalone unattributed POV sentence as it stands.
• " to Los Angeles to convince" no need to link this, no-one will think, ooh, I'll click on this.
• "owed a payment.[11][9][13]" ref order.
• " his script. He considered" consider merge.
• "August.[14][8][7] When" ref order.
• "The most difficult part..." according to whom?
• "towering Marshmallow Man appeared. The Marshmallow Man was" repetitive.

That takes me to "Cast and characters", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "until the last minute" colloquial, not encyclopedic.
• "were also considered ... were considered to" repetitive.
• "appearance. It featured a" -> "appearance, featuring a "
• "he attended school with " with whom he attended school.
• "from historian Oswald Spengler" perhaps "from German historian..."?
• "approximately five auditions" this read odd to me so I looked at the source which says “[There must have been] five interviews ..." not "approximately".
• "an Air Force demolitions" no need for capitals as this isn't the formal title of the organisation, unless you add "United States" at the front of it.
• "intended for Eddie Murphy" you repeat Eddie here but then "and VelJohnson were " omit Reginald. Be consistent.
• "and began walking on all fours" there's no context for this, do you mean she did this at her audition, or just in general?
• "enough dogs in the film. They and Candy passed" who is "they", the dogs?
• "passed on the casting" what does that mean?
• "the set dresser. Her character ended up wearing the glasses throughout the film.[26][10]" -> "the set dresser which her character subsequently wore throughout the film.[10][26]" (reword, ref order).
• "The role was ... Dumont's role as"... repetitive.
• "William Atherton (in 2009) portrays Environmental Protection Agency inspector Walter Peck" complete sentence so full stop required.
• "During the first day, Reitman brought Murray to the set" During seems odd here, why not "On"?
• "to be... my" MOS:ELLIPSIS.
• "adapting multiple takes to keep cast inserts" jargon.
• "Central Park West" link this first time, not second.
• Link Fifth Avenue.
• "just after Christmas and before the New Year" -> "between Christmas and the New Year".
• "effects, they needed skilled" who is "they"? wouldn't "skilled ... were needed" be preferred?
• "existent in New York.[32] Despite its New York" repetitive.
• "they could film only" similar to the point above, "filming could only be..."

That takes me to "Post-production". More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• "and looming June 8, 1984, release date" reads clumsily, do we need the date here?
• "editing the film while shooting it." edited the film while is was being shot.
• "filming an ... film" repetitive.
• "effects-laden film .... effects " ditto.
• "filmed in advance; there was no option to go back and film new scenes..." four uses of "film" in a single sentence...
• "The feeling was ..." whose feeling?
• "son Peter.[42][41] " ref order.
• "filming had begun or all the cast had been signed." this reads oddly to me in the prose. Maybe a footnote to say that (if I'm reading it right) the timing was uncertain.
• "Ghostbusters".[42][41] Bernstein" ref order.
• "like ["Ghostbusters"], " previous quote you had "him [Reitman]" so you didn't replace the word, here it looks like you are replacing a word in a quote. Consistency?
• "Lewis was" as the previous mention was the name of the band, it's appropriate here to name him fully.
• "studios were ... remaining studios were" repetitive.
• "shots were done in one" done is clumsy reading, captured? made?
• "Gross oversaw both..." artist overdose in this sentence, at least three uses...
• "Johnson took at least three grams of cocaine " this is titivating, but is it really useful? And was this three grams in one sitting or three grams over two months of design work? I'm not sure it's relevant.
• " the correct scale. They bought several" merge these short sentences.
• "Zombie Cab Driver puppet.[53] The Zombie was" repetitive.
• "The Library catalog scene" why capital L?
• "blowing air ... to blow " repetitive.
• "were simply hung" no need for "simply".
• "The model was heavy and unwieldy. It took..." merge.
• "30-foot" convert.
• "advent of CGI, any " explain CGI before using the initialism.
• "create a second" one, not "a"
• "red contacts that" do you mean "contact lenses"?
• "deal of pain; she wore a harness" are these clauses linked?

That takes me to "Technology and equipment", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. The Bernstein thing is meant to mean that he joined the project very early on before most other components were set in stone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh and the Cocaine part, I just find it fascinating tbh and it was obviously important to whatever process he undertook that night. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging The Rambling Man, sorry to rush, I'd just like to get it done before the new film comes out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll aim to get the rest done by the end of today. Sorry for the pause, not been feeling 100%. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to manage it tonight, I'll do my best to get there tomorrow morning. I encountered traffic on my way to High Wycombe where I'm going to watch the Tractor Boys beat the Chair Boys. If that helps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I can relate to the traffic part in the UK, my disinterest in football knows no bounds. Have fun. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

• " in the six weeks before filming began" any insight as to why this short timescale?
• "on-screen models were" of the proton packs.
• "The neutrino wand had" in quote marks for consistency.
• "The PKE meter" what's that?
• "It also had fantastic features ..." which didn't make it on-screen?
• "a No symbol with" no need capitalise No.
• "consultant Brent Boates. Boates drew" repetitive.
• "consumed enough power the rest " this doesn't parse correctly for me, maybe "consumed so much power that the rest"
• "explodes ... explosion" repetitive.
• "was done on set" very much dislike "done".
• "its wide release" country or world?
• "increased to $23.1 million during its first week, becoming the first major success" what level constitutes a "major success"? $20 million?
• I would consider inflating these 1984 dollars, hard to believe that's already 37 years ago...
• "behind Red Dawn and" you have genres for all the other movies noted, but not Red Dawn?
• "later.[9][83][82]" ref order.
• "The year 1984 saw... " I know we're avoiding starting a sentence with a numeral, but "The year..." is unnecessary, can we reword.
• "grossed over $100 million" in a single calendar year?
• "a Fireman's pole" no need for capital F.
• "far more style and finesse than would be expected" this isn't a quote, it would appear, so avoid making "factual statements" of opinion in Wikipedia's voice.
• "Newsweek's" link.
• "the Marx brothers " Brothers normally capitalised.
• Merge the two short paras in the Accolades section (the first is a single-sentence para).
• "Ray Parker, Jr.'s" no comma, check the image caption too.
• "Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker Jr, for" no need for repetition of Ray here. And for consistency, Jr. has a period.
• "Parker, Jr. later" no comma.

That takes me to "Home media", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Done for the most part, the six week window is just because of the part established in ...development I think where they pitched it in March 1983 and it was due out in July 1984. It was just a truncated production window. The 23.1 million making it a success, I don't know, the source just said its a hit. Back then that would be a lot of money especially when it cost 30 million to make. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Priced at $79.95" how much?! inflate too, this and other such values, it is astonishing.
• "selling the ... and sell" repetitive.
• CLV, CAV, these are highly technical terms, they probably need explanation or a footnote as to what the difference is, I certainly don't know what they are and I'm curious why different formats of LaserDisc were used.
• "in the LaserDisc version" presumably you mean "versions".
• "a USB Flash Drive when" no need for capital F or D.
• "Blu-ray disc editions" link, for consistency, as you've linked VHS, DVD etc.
• "Ecto-mobile" hyphenated here for a reason?
• "Although the typical..." 54-word sentence, bit too much.
• "The EPA explicitly" who?
• "nukebusters") sanitation" needs comma.
• "used Proton Pack selling" previously I think this was just "proton pack" i.e. in quotes and not capitalised.
• "The Hollywood Reporter's" link.
• "Empire's reader" ditto.

That's all I have. Overall, I really enjoyed reading the article, and hope that my comments have been constructive and useful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks The Rambling Man, yes your comments have been very helpful Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome, happy to support. Last thing, could the ISBNs be made consistently formatted? No big deal. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

If someone knows how to do the IBSN stuff I don't mind but it's one of those things that is beyond my understanding, I don't get how they work. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, please put me out of my misery and tell me this can finally be promoted. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Support from zmbro

• Very well written. Happy to support. – zmbro _(talk) 13:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Laser brain

Taking a look into the academic literature now and will comment soon with any worthy additions. --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Update: I did not really find anything of note in scholarly literature that's specifically about this film. I'm reasonably satisfied that this article is well-researched and comprehensive. The only thing I would note is that we could expand on the brief mention of how the female-lead reboot was received because there are two salient papers that explore how the predominantly male fanbase of this film may have driven the toxic reactions to the reboot:

• Blodgett, Bridgett (March 2018). "Ghostbusters is For Boys: Understanding Geek Masculinity's Role in the Alt-right". Communication Culture & Critique. 11 (1): 133–146. doi:10.1093/ccc/tcx003.
• Proctor, William (December 2017). "'Bitches Ain't Gonna Hunt No Ghosts': Totemic Nostalgia, Toxic Fandom and the Ghostbusters Platonic". Palabra Clave. 20 (4): 1105–1141. doi:10.5294/pacla.2017.20.4.10.

Hope this helps round out the article and conclude this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that information not more relevant to the 2016 film article Laser_brain? I couldn't mention that content in more than passing in the sequel section without it losing focus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd leave that to your judgment, just in case you might have been looking for things to add to that section. I'll be happy to support once TRM's feedback is concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Reading the documents I think I will leave it out unless asked to change it. If I insert a mention of male toxicity there I feel it is detrimental to not go into greater detail about it. Thank you for checking the existing sources and finding these though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I've given this another read-through after TRM's review and am happy to support. --Laser brain (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes! Sweet merciful lord, it's over, the two year saga is at a close!!! Thank you everyone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Craig Bellamy/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tala tank/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grey's Anatomy (season 17)/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soiscél Molaisse/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2015 World Snooker Championship/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Second Battle of Independence/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/I Knew You Were Trouble/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Greed (game show)/archive2 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English invasion of Scotland (1650)/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Dhoby Ghaut MRT station/archive2 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1988 World Snooker Championship/archive1 Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manon Melis/archive1

[[Category:Wikipedia featured content|PAGENAME]]

Featured article reviews

Template:FAR-instructions/small navbox Wikipedia:Featured article review